





E 458 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



DDODbmSlbM 



* 4- v x* 




° 4? 



v «; 






a9 * 



^ 



. r» v . ■ • • 




AC? 

4°, 



*2*_ 



TU 



REPUBLICAN IMPERIALISM 



19 NOT 



AMERICAN LIBERTY 



S4Jtt1 . Ah*#t> JKff^i 






TO THE READER. 



The following pages embrace the substance of views contained in a 
letter written by a father to his son, from the Pacific. Further know- 
ledge of the rapidly developing events of Administrative Usurpation led 
to its enlargement; and it is now published to gratify the wishes of 
Mends who desire to possess copies of it. 



REPUBLICAN IMPERIALISM 



AMEEIOAN LIBERTY 



The momentous events that have transpired in our own land, the 
knowledge of which has burst upon me with such terrific suddenness 
and certainty ; and the horrid echoes of fraternal strife that roll across 
the continent, to stir here «the deep emotions of the soul, and agitate 
the mind with the convulsive throes of dismay ; banish from thought 
surrounding attractions that would, under any other circumstances, 
hold the traveler with their flowery chain, and transport the whole 
moral being back to its native country. Country ! Have we any 
longer a country ? I do not mean land and a formulary of govern- 
ment, with its executive patronage, army, navy and varied instru- 
mentalities of power which may become converted into agencies of 
tyranny. But have we the country bequeathed to us by our fathers ? 
An inheritance of freedom and constitutional rights ? Inalienable 
liberty guarded by law ? A government around which the confidence 
and the affections of all the people cluster ? The secession of States, 
the assumption of ungranted powers, and the adoption of a coercive 
administrative policy at Washington, give sad answer to the question. 
And resulting as these have in a civil war of more terrible propor- 
tions and disastrous results than any hitherto known to man, it 
becomes every heir of American freedom, wherever he may be, to dis- 
card all partialities and prejudices, resulting from merely sectional 
attachments and interests, and all considerations of past party affilia- 
tions ; and to examine the great political principles of government 
underlying and endangered by this contest, with reference to the deter- 
mination of the duties devolved on him by varied responsibilities. I can- 
not disregard the imperiousness of this decision. Born in freedom, nur- 
tured in freedom, and enjoying its boundless blessings through manhood, 
I know no other but the lesson it inculcates of cherishing it unimpared 
for future generations. I have no heart for further narrative or for reflec- 
tions on incidental topics. Nor could I put the tedious hours of a voyage 
to as good an account as in determining, if practicable, for your bene- 



fit and mine, where lies our path of duty for the future, before min- 
gling again with excited multitudes, and being thrown among the 
surging events that may influence judgment and unsettle convictions 
of right. To decide properly so momentous a question it should be 
done calmly. Reason should bear sway not passion. This is due to 
truth and to my influence over your destiny. 

It is often the case that trifling causes lead to important results. I 
have no purpose by the remark, thus to distinguish those which have 
brought about our existing calamities. Whether these were trivial 
or important, just or unjust, enough or insufficient, to justify the 
course of action, which we now know eventuated in civil war, I shall 
not discuss. The want of access to historical records, and of time, 
as well as the desire to avoid all collateral considerations which might 
in the slightest degree warp the judgment of the one great vital ques- 
tion of political freedom, forbid it. 

Regarding the vast involvement of the subject of government, and 
the mazes of the past through which its student is taught to trace it, 
ignorant of the science of politics as contradistinguished to that of 
government, and inexperienced in the practices of partizan politicians, 
I should venture on this theme with diffidence, did I not know that 
the Anglo-Saxon had cut the Grordian knot, unfolded the intricacies 
of falsehood and evolved the great truth of human right, which " is a 
lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path." And regarding, too, the 
announcements following each other in rapid succession, of arbitrary ar- 
rests and imprisonments, that have been made in disregard and viola- 
tion of law, timidity might inculcute an avoidance of discussions that 
may possibly prove unacceptable to power, but that a proudly-inherit- 
ed Anglo-Saxon fearlessness spurns a concealment of honest convic- 
tions. And even were this not so, I might claim the privilege of the 
Roman custom, of which we are told by Sir Robert Philips, and 
which on the occasion of an annual festival, conceded to the slaves 
without exception, the unrestrained liberty " to speak what they 
pleased, in order to ease their afflicted minds." But can it be that 
the rights of American citizens' " freedom of speech and of the press " 
guaranteed by the Constitution, have been violated by Executive au- 
thority ? Can it be that American citizens have be*n degraded to 
the condition of slaves, as said by Sir Francis Seymour in the Parlia- 
ment of Charles the First, " by allowing their liberty to be taken 
from them against the laws of the land ?" Can it be that the occa- 
sion has arisen when all patriots should exclaim with the heroic Philips 
in the same Parliament, " I can live, though another who has no 
right be put to live along with me ; nay, I can live, though burdened 
with impositions beyond what at present I labor under, but to have 
my liberty, which is the soul of my life, ravished from me, to have my 
person pent up in a jail, without relief by law, — 0, improvident ances- 
tors ! 0, unwise forefathers ! to be so curious in providing for the 
quiet possession of our lands and the liberties of Parliament, and at 
the same time to neglect our personal liberty, and let us lie in prison, 
and that during pleasure, without redress or remedy ! If this be law, 



why do we talk of liberties ? Why trouble ourselves with disputes 
about a constitution, franchises, property of goods, and the like ? 
What may any man call his own, if not the liberty of his person ?" 
And if these reports be true, is there no true-hearted and fearless 
member of an American Congress who will rise in his place, and in 
imitation of the brave old Englishman in the Parliament of 1628, im- 
mortalize himself by saying " I am weary of treading these wajs, and 
therefore conclude to have a select committee." Have we fallen on 
such degenerate times, that there is now no follower of bold Sir 
Thomas Wentworth, afterwards as the Earl of Strafford; " like the 
comet, beautiful and fierce, dashing athwart with train of flame" the 
eternal orbits of its golden and more harmonious associates to pro- 
claim of " Ministers of State — these have ravished at once the spheres 
of all ancient gouernment ; destroying all liberty, imprisoning us 
without bail or bond. They have taken from us — what shall I say ? 
Indeed, what have they left us ? We must vindicate — what ? New 
things ? No, our ancient, legal and vital liberties ; by reinforcing the 
laws enacted by our ancestors ; by setting such a stamp upon them, 
that no licentious spirit shall dare henceforth to invade them." 

It is a matter of interest to observe the extent to which the men of 
that epoch deemed an ardent love of liberty transmissible by inheri- 
tance ; whether the opinion was correct or not to the full extent, 
events now occurring will show. It was shortly before the death of 
the second Charles, that the charter of the colony of Massachusetts 
was forfeited. A question arose how it was to be governed in future. 
The general opinion of the Board was that all power should abide in 
the crown. History informs us that " Halifax argued with energy 
against absolute monarchy, and in favor of representative government. 
It was in vain he said, to think that a population sprung from the 
English stock, and animated by English feelings would long bear to 
be deprived of English institutions. Life, N he exclaimed, would not be 
worth having in a country where liberty and property were at the mer- 
cy of one despotic master." If this be true, what means it that Fort 
Warren in Boston horbor is said to have been coverted into a Bastile 
by despotic power ? Or can it be that Massachusetts while always 
prompt to vindicate the personal liberty of her own sons, is ready to 
become the jailor of others ? 

Surely it will not be maintained that the President of the United 
States can exercise powers exceeding those of the British Monarchy. 
Charles the First was tried, condemned, and beheaded for that, being 
"intrusted with a limited power, yet nevertheless from a wicked de- 
sign to erect an unlimited and tyrannical government, he had treach- 
erously levied war against the people, and was therefore impeached as 
a tyrant, traitor, murderer, and a public and implacable enemy to the 
commonwealth." 

Has it come to this in America, that the constitutional guards of 
the citizens' rights, " his security against searches and seizures without 
warrant, supported by oath or affirmation," his exemption from being 
" held to answer for a crime unless on a presentment of a grand 



8 

jury," and not to be " deprived of life, liberty, or property, without 
due process of law ;" his privilege of " a speedy and public trial by 
an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall 
have been committed," and to be " informed of the nature and cause 
of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to 
have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to 
have the assistance of counsel for his defense ;" his title to " the 
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus," the suspension of which is 
not enumerated under the specially granted Presidential powers, and 
from the stay of which the President is therefore precluded ; has it 
come to this, that these rights of the citizen, guaranteed to him by 
the hitherto inviolate provisions of the Constitution, have been 
trodden under foot by the Executive ? If so, then may we exclaim 
with the English Minister of the stormy period when human freedom 
was struggling to maintain itself against the encroachments of 
tyranny, " life is not worth having, in a country where liberty is at 
the mercy of a despotic master." If so, our vaunted republican gov- 
ernment is a cheat, and our boasted constitutional liberty a lie; for a 
free government, in which every individual is subject to the arbitrary 
will and power of another, in which every citizen is a slave, is a glar- 
ing contradiction. If so, either the founders of this republic betrayed 
their trust, or he who was elected to administer its government, and 
has sworn to defend the Constitution, which " intrusts him with a 
limited power," has, like Charles the First, formed a " wicked design 
to erect an unlimited and tyrannical government," and like him de- 
serves to be impeached as " a tyrant, traitor, murderer, and a public 
and implacable enemy to the commonwealth." // so, the day will 
come when the people of the United States will read with amazement 
the history of present violations of personal liberty, and of Executive 
usurpation and oppression, and blush to know that they, or their 
ancestors, through fanaticism, partisan passion, sectional animosity, 
servility, mercenary interest, or tame submission, had disregarded the 
tyranny which wielded its most potent engine of arbitrary arrest and 
prolonged imprisonment openly and unchallenged, crushing the erect 
and independent spirit of freemen with the silence, the gloom, the 
damp, the deprivations and the sufferings of a cell or a casemate ; 
and who thus sanctioned the precedent of future invasion of consti- 
tutional rights, and possibly the entire overthrow of all the bulwarks 
of both political and personal liberty. And if so, to write as I write 
to you — if it be also true, as believed, that the sanctity of private cor- 
respondence is deliberately violated by public authority — is to dare 
illegal arrest and punishment in the hideous form of irresponsible 
military despotism. Be it so. God forbid that I should set you the 
base and craven example of mortgaging an atom of the independence 
and constitutional liberty, consecrated by the blood of our fathers, by 
even the submission of silence to tyranny ! Depend upon it, that, 
that man is the happiest, both here and hereafter, who carries with 
him to his final account the consciousness of having neither violated 
nor forfeited a right — neither in thought nor deed ; for if mind be 



immortal, thought is the record of immortality. Be assured that if, 
on landing in the United States, I should be dragged to the vaults 
of Fort Warren, or Fort Lafayette, • the names of which have been 
profaned by the base uses to which they are now converted, or to that 
other, Fort McHenry, along whose battlements the strain of that 
national anthem, dedicated to its flag by Southern genius, now echoes 
as if in derision, I shall enjoin you to " stand fast in the liberty where- ' 
with you have been made free, and be not entangled again with th© 
yoke of bondage." 

Like the germ, borne by the winds of heaven to the rocky cleft, 
responds there to its living principle ; walled in by crag, choked by 
accumulating debris, shut in by gloom, and writhing, twisting, and 
struggling, towards the open sunshine and clear sky ; so the principle 
of human right inculcating freedom from arbitrary power, and equality 
before the law, long hidden from man, was sown in the rude breast of 
the Saxon, and there grew through ages of darkness, and against the 
fierce resistance of tyranny to maturity and general recognition. 

The manifestation of the principle of personal right is clearly seen 
in the earliest Anglo-Saxon history in the numerous divisions and 
subdivisions of government, all tending to the recognition of responsi- 
bility, and promotive of the people's welfare. And although the 
Norman Conqueror of England sought to obliterate the local exercise 
of authority, local freedom, energy, activity, and sense of independence, 
and to centralize all power in one irresponsible head, yet in the second 
reign after, Henry the First, sensible that his crown sat unsteady on 
his head, resolved to gain the affections of his subjects by concessions 
to their prejudices, and by the promise of a a general confirmation and 
observance of the laws of King Edward," the Confessor, whose great 
virtue it had been to administer justice according to the old Saxon 
law, and for that purpose to compile a body of such, from the laws of 
Ethelbert and Alfred. Having accomplished his object of deluding 
the people by specious promises, and exposing copies of his charter to 
public view, we are told, that Henry was faithless to the observance 
of his engagements. Grievances remained unredressed, and the royal 
authority and usurpations were unrestrained. And such violations of 
popular rights, continuing during the reigns of the succeeding century 
and until the year 1215, the English Barons, weary of oppression, 
assembled in London, and demanded of King John, that, in fulfilment 
of " his oath, and in deference to their just rights, he should grant them 
a renewal of Henry's charter, and a confirmation of the laws of St. 
Edward." The King refused to grant their demands, but found him- 
self obliged at iast " to submit at discretion, and at Runnymede, ever 
since celebrated on account of the great event, the famous deed, called 
the Great Charter, was granted, securing important liberties and 
privileges to every order of men in the kingdom." With the conces- 
sion of privileges to the Barons were comprehended many of great 
importance to the people, among which were, that " Courts of Justice 
should be open to every one ; and justice shall no longer be sold, 
refused or delayed, and no freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or 



10 

dispossessed of his free tenement and liberties, or outlawed, or ban- 
ished, or otherwise hurt or injured, unless by the legal judgment of 
his peers, or by the law of the land." 

Thus, after centuries of obstinate resistance to despotic encroach- 
ment, and resolute perseverance to secure an acknowledgment, and 
legal guards for their rights, the people hailed, in the articles of 
Magna Charta, the chief objects of long years of aspiration. 

But as all the Kings of England had availed of the usurper's plea 
of necessity, or expediency, to disregard, at times, the requirements 
of the Charter, although, as the historian informs us, " our generous 
ancestors got the confirmation reiterated thirty-seven times," and as 
Charles the First had in repeated instances violated it, the House of 
Commons, declaring that the English had ever been free, and ever 
been governed by law, and a limited constitution, resolved on a " Pe- 
tition of Eight," implying thus an affirmation of the ancient consti- 
tution and liberties. The King endeavored to elude the petition ; 
and finally, when adopted by the two Houses, and called on to pass 
upon the bill, he sought to evade its force by a vague response. But 
the English Parliament of that day were neither to be duped nor de- 
feated. Of sense and nerve sufficient to fit its members for their high 
functions, as conservators of the people's rights, they prosecuted their 
purpose of securing for these entire safety, and the royal sanction re- 
warded their firmness in the memorable words, " Let it be a law, as is 
desired." Thus is seen by this enforcement of assent to the " Peti- 
tion of Right," the attainment of an additional security to the lib- 
erties of Englishmen. But it is not surprising, considering the re- 
luctance with which the Prince conceded the demand of his subjects, 
that he should, with the power still inherent in the crown, have 
availed of an early opportunity to disregard his engagements. And it 
has been truly said that such "opportunities often occur in the course 
of human adairs. Governments, especially those of a mixed kind, 
are in continual fluctuation ; the humors of the people change con- 
tinually from one extreme to another," and afford the chances and the 
excuses for interference and encroachment of power. These, however, 
are not always indulged in with impunity, and such was the case with 
the unfortunate Charles, for his disregard of law and trespass upon 
popular rights cost him his head. Nevertheless, the English guardians 
of the personal safety of the subject considered that one more act was 
necessary to effect its perfect security. " The Great Charter," we are 
told by the English historian, " had laid the foundation of this val- 
uable part of liberty ; the Petition of Right had renewed and ex- 
tended it ; but some provisions were still wanting to render it com- 
plete and prevent all evasion, or delay, from ministers or judges. 
Hallam, also, in his Constitutional History of England, says : " It 
was not to bestow an immunity from arbitrary imprisonment, which 
is abundantly provided for in Magna Charta (if, indeed, it were not 
much more ancient,) that the statute of Charles the Second was 
enacted, but to cut off the abuses by which the government's lust of 
power, and the servile subtlety of" crown lawyers, had impaired so 



11 

fundamental a privilege." The passage of the act of Habeas Corpus, 
in 1678-79, during the reign of the second Charles, secured these 
objects. By it, " no judge, under severe penalties, can refuse to a 
prisoner a writ of habeas corpus, by which the jailor is directed to 
produce in court the body of the prisoner, and to certify the cause of 
his detainer and imprisonment. And under that act every prisoner 
must be indicted the first term after his commitment, and brought to 
trial in the subsequent term. And no man, after being enlarged by 
order of the Court, can be recommitted for the same offense/' 

Such is the absolute security thrown around the British subject at 
this day against arbitrary imprisonment. And such security for the 
citizen was contemplated by the provisions of the Constitution of the 
United States, but it has been left for the present Executive term to 
reveal the fact, that in an American Republic there is a " higher law" 
than the Constitution, and that is the arbitrary power unknown to a 
British Monarchy. It is a sore affliction to some of us to be debarred 
the privilege of standing by the side of our English cousins, and con- 
templating the writ of habeas corpus which has hitherto shielded us 
against oppression, saying with accustomed complacency to other 
nations, " Stand by thvself, come not near to me, for I am holier than 
thou." 

In saying that such is the security of the British subject at this 
day against arbitrary imprisonment, it is not designed to imply that 
no attempt was made in England after its passage to invade the 
sanctity of the law, and of personal liberty. James the Second, the 
successor of him whose reign was signalized by the great achievement 
of human right, blinded by the prevalent idea of monarchists of his 
divine authority, lost sight of the fundamental principles on which 
his throne actually rested, and seeking to subvert law and liberty, and 
make these dependent on his sovereign will and pleasure, was de- 
throned by an incensed people. 

This indication of popular right resulted in its firmer establishment ; 
and in the assertion of another, which has not failed to shake with its 
echoes the thrones of tyrants, through all generations, since the voice 
of the people proclaimed it. For the revolution of 1688 not merely 
settled the national policy, that the popular principle of government 
should not be destroyed by the monarchical, but in fact determined its 
dominance. And in the people's invitation to William and Mary of 
Orange to the throne, with a '' declaration of rights" affirming the 
fundamental laws of the realm, and setting forth legislative suprema- 
cy and freedom of the humblest subject from arbitrary imprisonment, 
we recognize the disrobing of royalty of those mysterious attributes of 
" divine right," and perpetuity, with which it had been before invested. 
Thus is traced the dim and uncertain twilight of Anglo-Saxon free- 
dom, its gradual increase, and risen sun, not since darkened by despot- 
ism. And to this source is due the principle of self-government 
which animates American institutions, and inspires our people with 
an inextinguishable love of liberty. 



12 

The dethronement of a British monarch for a violation of popular 
rights, and the selection of another agent by the people to execute 
their behests, were the first breathings of the inherent rights of man, 
afterwards more loudly and defiantly proclaimed by the founders of 
American Independence, that, " governments derive their just powers 
from the consent of the governed, and that whenever any form of gov- 
ernment becomes destructive of the ends (for which it is established) it 
is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new 
government, laying its foundations in such principles and organizing its 
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their 
safety and happiness." It has ever been a cause of reproach to our British 
ancestors that while thus for centuries sternly and unremittingly en- 
gaged in developing and finally establishing just principles of govern- 
ment in the mother country, they should have refused to concede the 
application of these to their American colonies. But inconsistency 
seems to be inseparable from human nature ; and so too, we are now 
illustrating the truth of the remark, in that, while we have plainly 
seen the "mote in our brother's eye," many are unable to see the 
"beam in our own eye," as shown by passing events. 

To the support of the declared rights of self-government above 
quoted, our fathers in 1776, pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred 
honors ; and as if to give it universal recognition and perpetuity, each 
succeeding anniversary of its coirr&iencement has been celebrated over 
the length and breadth of thelano> v by rejoicings, and by renewed 
pledges to maintain the great truth it proclaims. To deny it would 
be like turning back in the path of progress. • The indisputable inde- 
pendence of the colonies of each other, at the time of their determin- 
ation to shake off the authority of the mother country, made an 
agreement of common defense necessary ; and hence the Congress of 
Deputies representing thirteen independent colonies, clothed with dis- 
cretionary powers to " concert, agree upon, and prosecute" measures 
necessary to secure their safety, undertook by the exercise of both 
legislative and executive powers, the management of the war with 
England. The instrument was found inconvenient and inefficient in 
the working, an. I other msans were sought, which resulted, in 1781, in 
the adoption of the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union." 
A few years' experience with the latter showed such imperfections, and 
want of adaptation to the necessities especially of executive govern- i 
ment, revenue, and uniform commerce, that a convention of delegates 
from twelve states — Rhode Island not participating — assembled in'j 
1787 under the Presidency of Washington, and annulled the Articles? 
of Confederation, which by its thirteenth section had provided for aj, 
perpetual Union, by the adoption of a Constitution for the United;! 
States of America, under which the government now professes to bei| 
administered. 

Here, then, is seen the manner in which the political edifice of the ; 
United States was built, so far as concerns their exterior relations. 
The Declaration of Independence is the essential foundation, on whichji 
the superstructure stands. The Articles of Confederation first erected!! 



13 

thereon, not fulfilling the purposes for which they were designed, were dis- 
placed hy the Constitution, but without removing the corner stone of asserted 
right of self-government. I 

It is plain that to these two sources, the Declaration of Independence, and the 
. Constitution, must we look for the political principles, political rights, and politi- 
cal obligations, when questions involving these, and the perpetuity of free gov- 
ernment, are to be decided. The war of the American Revolution was not for 
Union, but against Union — " to dissolve the political bands which connected 
them with another " — and to establish, as it did, independent States. In the 
words of the Great American Charter, the Colonies were solemnly declared 
" absolved from all allegience to the British Crown, and that all political con- 
nection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, 
totally dissolved ; and that, as free and independent States, they have full 
power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, 
and do all acts and things which independent States may of right do." And 
making good the right to dissolve a " political connection," to " form new 
government," and to " contract alliances," which was conceded by the Treaty 
of Peace in 1783, wherein Great Britain acknowledged the thirteen Colonies, 
by separate name, " to be Free, Sovereign, and Independent States." They 
then proceeded to adopt other measures considered proper for the welfare of 
each and all. The breath of political life was thus breathed into these 
hitherto inert dependencies. Each became a free, sovereign, and independent 
State, and proceeded of its own volition, unawed by power, unconstrained 
by coercion, to exercise one of the expressed attributes of its sovereignty. 
And how sublime the spectacle presented to our contemplation by Rhode 
Island, a Northern State, the smallest of the new family of States, and 
North Carolina, a Southern State, standing calmly and fearlessly upon their 
independence, deliberately weighing, ere they determined, if it would be con- 
sistent with their safety and interest, to contract alliances with others. 
Great would have been the lesson for good, if, reading that page of our early 
history, some of the present generation had been taught the wisdom of con- 
cession and conciliation ! 

But sadly for mankind, and the influence over their destiny of our example, 
these misguided men have failed to appreciate justly the truth, that the 
United States are an assemblage of nationalities, each possessing a distinct- 
ive sense of individuality ; of organic and statute law ; legislative, judicial, 
and executive functions ; sectional character and views, social and domestic 
being ; and that these, born of acknowledged independent sovereignty, have 
become strengthened by the free exercise of this, for three quarters of a 
century, in all but a few delegated, carefully specified and limited powers ; 
over which, however, it has continued to exercise a constant and jealous 
supervision. And they have also unhappily disregarded, or not recognized, 
what to others has been palpable, that, if the continuance of political slavery 
could not be endured by a disfranchised colonial dependant of monarchy, the 
attempt to exercise compulsory authority over a State claiming to exercise 
its sovereign and inalienable right to " dissolve its political bonds, and insti- 
tute new government," and the purpose to " teach bloody instruction " to a 
free people, would be the signal of a popular uprising and resistance that 
would know no rest but in triumph or extermination. 

Let us proceed further in the examination of the application of the great 
principle of self-government which had been vindicated, and of the development 
of our peculiar political system, to which it led. As has been stated in conse- 
quence of defective executive machinery, judicial, revenue and commercial regu- 
lations provided by the Articles of Confederation, they were supplanted by a 



14 

Constitution which conferred some additional grants of power ; the chief provi- 
sion however being an Executive independent of the clumsy agency of Congress, 
to act in specially designated, and limited cases. But it is necessary to notice 
some of the provisions of the compact of Confederation the better 
to understand the independence of the States, and the motives by which the 
several parties were governed in making the agreement. And it will be 
seen by reference to the first article in the Act, that " the style of this con- 
federacy shall be the United States of America." 

The assumption of consolidationists, that the adjective United in thisGon- 
nection, implies an extinguishment of individuality, is refuted by its association 
which grants a plurality of States. But if this were not manifest, it would 
be made so by the second Article, which declares that " Each State retains 
its sovereignty, freedom and independence." As to the motives which 
prompted the creation of the Confederation, and the objects to be secured 
thereby, these are plainly set forth in the third article, which says, " The said 
States hereby enter into a firm league of friendship with each other for their 
common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general 
welfare ; binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to, 
or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereign- 
ty, trade, or any other pretext whatever." Look at the spirit which animates 
this article ! A spirit of " friendship" not of hatred, forms a " league," each 
with the " other," not for their mutual extinction and destruction, but " for their 
common defense." " For the security of their liberties" not for their enslave- 
ment. "For their mutual and general welfare," not for the injury and ruin, 
of their dearest rights and interests. And they " bind themselves to assist 
each other against all force"— whether from without or within—" offered to, 
or attacks made upon them, or any oj them, on account of religion, sovereign- 
ty, trade, or any other pretext whatever:' If language be taken as the repre- 
sentative of purpose, then, certainly, no warrant can be found in the above 
agreement, or any plea, for the exercise of violence or force, by any one or 
more States, towards any other State ; on the contrary, if the " sovereignty" 
of any State were assailed, on " any pretext whatever," the other parties to 
the league were bound to defend it. 

But the advocates of a Supreme centralized power, the destructives of old 
identity, which came of Saxon liberty and Saxon law; of chartered colony, 
and revolutionary right; may seek to dispose of the difficulty by saying, that 
the Constitution adopted in 1787, superseded the Articles of Confederation of 
1781. This is not denied; and in conceding the fact, the occasion may be 
availed of to say, that it disposes of the pretense that a "perpetual union" 
was designed and agreed to; for, by the canceling of that compact, the "per- 
petual union" which it, and it only, provided for, fell to the ground. 

Let us, then, look to the Constitution, for further light to guide us m the 
path of duty. It may be assumed that, its inculcations are not m conflict 
with the liberty and right of self-government, secured by the Great Charter 
of American Independence; if they were, they could not, and should not, re- 
ceive the approval, and rule the conduct of the true patriot. 

For what purpose was the Constitution of the United States adopted by 
them 1 The answer is declared by its preamble to be "to form a more per- 
fect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the com- 
mon defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty 
to ourselves and our posterity." This is the key to open the way to an un- 
derstanding of the objects to be attained and to a just interpretation of the 
means proposed. 



15 

The Articles of Confederation, it will have been remarked, were also desig- 
nated Articles of " Perpetual Union." The preamble of the Constitution, by 
its first clause states, that it is " to form a more perfect union" — the idea of 
perpetuity being ignored in that instrument by the failure to use the same, or 
any equivalent word, to that in the Articles of Confederation, implying a con- 
tinuance of the Union through all time — as if the authors of the Constitution 
saw the absurdity of proposing such an obligation, in the face of the " self- 
evident truths" of the Declaration of Independence, that " governments derive 
their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that whenever any 
form of government becomes destructive of the ends (for which it is established) 
it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new govern- 
ment" 

The perfection or completeness of the condition of the Union, was desirable, 
and provided for no doubt, as far as human foresight and wisdom, were equal 
to that task. But the same wisdom perceived, after the excitements of war 
had passed, and time was given calmly to deliberate upon and mature a form 
of government, that a proposal of perpetuity would not only be absurd in 
itself, but in conflict with the right to "alter and abolish" which they had 
previously announced, and vindicated ; and hence, doubtless, the phraseology 
of the Articles of Confederation expressing "perpetual union," was rejected. 

The formation of the American Union proceeded from an exercise of one of 
the express attributes of sovereignty claimed in the Declaration of Indepen- 
dence by the thirteen colonies — the right to " contract alliances." The Con- 
stitution of the United States is in truth but a treaty of amity, of defense, and 
offense, between the contracting parties, with certain stipulations deemed 
necessary to secure the objects designed. The Union formed by it was an 
" alliance" intended to secure the good of all the parties to it, and not the 
good of some of them at the expense of the rest, and the constitutional treaty 
which formed it was no more binding than any corresponding treaty between 
European nationalities. The express stipulations of such an agreement vio- 
lated by one party, it is undeniable, releases the other parties to the compact 
from all obligation to observe it, and restores to them the just exercise of 
whatever partial functions they may for a time, and for a specified purpose, 
have surrendered. 

Those who desire to see all the rights of the separate States absorbed by 
an unlimited central Government, assert that such violations the central Gov- 
ernment alone can determine by its judicial tribunal. To this it should be 
sufficient to reply in the language of Mr. Madison, a chief author of the compact 
on which the present Government rests, " that the Constitution of the United 
States was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sover- 
eign capacity. It adds to its stability and dignity, as well as to the authority 
of the Constitution that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The 
States then being the parties to the Constitutional compact, it follows of ne- 
cessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority to decide, in the 
last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated, and consequently, 
that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such 
questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition." 

And Mr. Jefferson also said : " Our Government is based on the consent of 
the governed. To the compact each State acceded and is an integral party ; 
the Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final 
judge of the extent oj the powers delegated to itself, since that would have 
made its discretion and not the Constitution the measure of its powers, but 
that, as in all cases of compact among persons having no common judge, 



16 

each State has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of 
the mode and measures of 'redress." 

If such authority were not conclusive on this point, it might be further ar- 
gued that the Judicial power provided by the Constitution applies only to 
cases " arising under the Constitution." How then are the questions to be 
decided outside of that instrument] For however great the wisdom and 
patriotism of our forefathers, surely it will not be pretended that they could 
look into the future of the country and provide for all the contingencies of its 
development. The difficulty of adjustment of powers especially, was referred 
to by Washington as President of the Constitutional Convention, in his letter 
to Congress, covering a report of their proceedings. He therein said : " It 
is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights 
which must be surrendered and those which may be reserved ; and on the 
present occasion this difficulty was increased by a difference among the sev- 
eral States as to their situation, extent, habits and particular interests." And 
with all the wisdom, ability and patriotism engaged in the preparation of the 
Constitution, thus transmitted to Congress, it was not found adapted to the 
then requirements of the country, and to allay the apprehensions of the peo- 
ple as to their rights, and the jealousy of the States as to their sovereignty, 
further guards were forthwith provided in the form of amendments. It is not 
surprising then, that, in the lapse of time which has probably quadrupled the 
territory of the United States, and increased its population from three millions 
to more than thirty millions ; which has introduced an enormous foreign ele- 
ment of unassimilated political opinions, social and business habits, to those 
of our own people, unacquainted too with the history of our country, the or- 
deal of suffering and sacrifice through which it had passed, and the spirit of 
compromise, conciliation and concord which had come of these ; and which 
suddenly released from the restraints of political slavery in Europe, was mad- 
dened by the licentiousness of acquired freedom that made it the dupe of 
demagogues who cared not for the public peace so that their own selfish or 
wicked ends were promoted ; which by multiplied and extended enterprises, 
personal, corporate and State, created interests aspiring to Government pro- 
tection and patronage, while they developed a power to control them, and in 
various ways opened up new pursuits, developed sectional interests, and crea- 
ted antagonisms, parties and factions, animated and controlled by aught but 
the patriotic spirit and self-sacrificing devotion of the founders of the Kepub- 
lic ; it is not surprising that under such circumstances questions might arise 
beyond human foresight, and not contemplated, therefore, as " cases arising 
under the Constitution," and upon which the authority of the Supreme Court 
of the United States could not be brought to bear. In fact, even in cases in 
which that Court may be supposed .to have jurisdiction, such has been the 
character of resistance that its authority is a dead letter so far as its protec- 
tion of right and enforcement of justice is concerned. Let us take an exam- 
ple. The second section of the fourth article of the Constitution provides 
that " No person held to service or labor in one State under the laws there- 
of, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation 
therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on 
claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." It is 
well known that laws were passed by Congress, known as fugitive slave laws, 
to make effective the above article. Over all questions arising under this 
article, and the enactments to enforce it, it would be supposed that the 
Supreme Court could exercise effective jurisdiction, if in any case. How 
stands the fact 1 I quote the deliberate legislation of Pennsylvania to answer 
the question. On the 31st March, 1860, that State passed the following law, 



17 

to wit : " No Judge of any of the Courts of this Commonwealth, nor any 
Alderman, or Justice of the Peace of said Commonwealth, shall have juris- 
diction, or take cognizance, of the case of any fugitive from labor from any 
of the United States, or Territories, under any Act of Congress, nor shall 
any such Judge, Alderman, or Justice of the Peace, issue or grant any cer- 
tificate or warrant of removal of any such fugitive from lahor, under any act 
of Congress; and if any Alderman, or Justice of the Peace of the Common- 
wealth, shall take cognizance or jurisdiction of the case of any such fugitive, 
or shall grant or issue any certificate or warrant of removal, as aforesaid, then, 
and in either case, he shall he deemed guilty of a misdemeanor in office, and 
shall, on conviction thereof, be sentenced to pay, at the discretion of the Court, 
any sum not exceeding one thousand, dollars." " If any person or persons, 
claiming any negro or mulatto as a fugitive from servitude or labor, shall, 
under any j^etence of authority whatever, violently and tumultuously seize 
upon and carry away to any place, or attempt to seize and carry away, in a 
riotous, violent, tumultuous and unreasonable manner, and so as to disturb or 
endanger the public peace, any negro or mulatto within this Commonwealth, 
either with or without the intention of taking such negro or mulatto before any 
District or Circuit Judge, the person or persons so offending against the 
peace of this Commonwealth shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; and on con- 
viction thereof shall be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding one thousand 
dollars ; and further, to be imprisoned in the County Jail for any period at 
the discretion of the Court, not exceeding three months." 

It is thus seen to be a crime in Pennsylvania to obey the Constitution of 
the United States, and that a citizen of another State seeking his fugitive 
from service in that State, according to the laws of the United States, if he 
should not lose his life from mob resistance, as was the case with a citizen of 
Maryland, would be almost certain to be fined and imprisoned. Massachu- 
setts, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New 
York, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa, have spread upon their statute- 
books laws aualagous in principle with that quoted, deliberately designed to 
nullify the provision of the Constitution, and the acts of Congress passed in 
conformity thereto on this subject, and as effectually disabling the government 
from redressing the wrongs of the aggrieved citizen as if there were no con- 
stitutional compact whatever. These States have in fact and deed withdrawn 
their assent from the sole agreement which created a Union of States. In 
other words, they are by act, though not avowedly, seceders. And the con- 
clusion to which every sane man must come, in view of such proceedings, is 
that of Daniel Webster, whose great mind refused to " penetrate the veil " of 
present misery and desolation, and who, in 1851, publicly proclaimed "that 
if the Northern States refuse wilfully and deliberately to carry into effect that 
part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, the 
South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain broken 
on one side is a bargain broken on all sides." It is even so; violated faith 
has opened the door to the destroying angel, and the result is now felt in the 
shattered hopes of a once great and prosperous people. That result has 
actually come contemplated by Mr. Madison, in the Constitutional Conven- 
tion, when he said : " Although all the States have assented to the Confedera- 
tion, an infraction of any one article by one of the States is a dissolution of 
the whole. This is the doctrine of the civil law on treaties." The self- 
evident proposition that a Constitution designed to create a Union could not 
provide the means of its destruction, has been relied on by some advocates of 
a " strong hand and bloody purpose," to show that it cannot, and must not, 
under any circumstances, be dissolved. So far as human wisdom could, at 



18 

* 

the time of its formation, propose means for its preservation, it was done. 
But competent and faithful administrators are as necessary to secure the 
beneficial objects of a trust as a suitable instrument creating it. Ignorant or 
wicked men may frustrate them. But if the argument be sound in regard to 
the Constitution of the United States, surely it is not less so in reference to 
the separate States that authorized and adopted it. It cannot be pretended 
that they provided thereby the means of their own destruction, and com- 
mitted political suicide ; consolidating their individualities and merging their 
thirteen sovereignties into one. If so, the " Stars and Stripes " falsify the 
fact; "the Bonny Blue Flag that bears a single star " would have been a 
more appropriate national emblem. Apart from the plurality idea of States 
which pervades every part of the Constitution, the tenth article of the amend- 
ments settles the matter conclusively — thus : " The powers not delegated to 
the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are 
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 

If more proof were necessary to show that the sovereignty of the separate 
States was not parted with or imperilled by the Constitution, reference might 
be made to the proceedings of the federal convention for the formation of a 
Constitution. The " secret proceedings and debates of Yates and Lansing" 
informs us that Mr. Madison declared in that body, " I mean to preserve the 
State rights with the same care as I would trials by Jury." That Mr. Bed- 
ford of Delaware said : " That all the States at present are equally sovereign 
and independent has been asserted from every quarter of this House. Our 
deliberations here are a confirmation of the position." Mr. King of Massachu- 
setts declared,' " I am in sentiment with those who wish the preservation of 
State Governments, but the General Government may be so constituted as to 
effect it. Let the Constitution we are about forming be considered as a com- 
mission under which the general government shall act, and as such it will be 
the guardian of the State rights." A fair consideration of the recorded pro- 
ceedings of that body shows that this was its preponderating wish and pur- 
pose, to preserve and perpetuate the State sovereignties; and, as felicitously 
expressed by Mr. King, to "Commission" an Agent in common of the various 
States, for certain specified general objects of interest to all, and not incon- 
sistent with the rights of any. And to support the same view the proceed- 
ings in the convention of Virginia, on the adoption of the Constitution, might 
be referred to. For when Patrick Henry challenged its acceptance, because 
of his fear that it might endanger the sovereignty of the States, Jefferson, 
Madison, Lee, and others, responded that his apprehensions were groundless, 
that by the adoption of the Constitution, the State would not surrender or 
give np any power whatever ; it had only delegated powers, which it would 
have a right to resume, whenever the Federal Government became destiuelhe 
of the ends for which it was established. Mr. Jefferson remarked that " States 
can wholly withdraw their delegated powers." It was because of the fears on 
this subject of such sterling patriots as Patrick Henry, that the amendment to 
the Constitution above quoted, in reference to the reserved powers of the 
States, was made. 

An interesting part of the history of the Constitution is, that Massachusetts 
also, by her convention for the ratification or rejection of that compact, pro- 
posed that to " quiet the apprehension of many of the good people of this 
commonwealth, and more effectually guard against an undue administration 
oj the Federal Government, the convention do therefore recommend that the 
following resolutions and provisions be introduced into the said Constitution : 
1st. That it be expressly declared that all persons not expressly delegated 



19 

by the aforesaid Constitution, are reserved to the several States, to be by 
them exercised — and others of like import. 

The designation " United States," implies associated individuality. If 
the name State of America had been proposed in the Constitution, it would 
doubtless have been rejected with unanimity. To such a conclusion we must 
come from the events attending its formation and adoption, which led to the 
express declaration that " the enumeration in the Constitution of certain 
rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained," in addi- 
tion to that before quoted, declaring that " the powers not delegated, are re- 
served to the States." No one can acquaint himself with the history of that 
period without conceding the fact that the various States which by the De- 
claration of Independence had proclaimed that they " are, and of right ought 
to be, free and independent States," and which by the treaty of peace with 
Great Britain, were acknowledged " to be free, sovereign and independent 
States," could not by the provisions of the Constitution have intended or per- 
petuated an act of self-destruction ; casting themselves, at the moment when 
ennobling realities were clustering around them, elated by the pride of separate 
existence and sovereignty, and with bright promises within reach, upon a sea 
of doubt and uncertainty, where others, as time might develope of antagonistic 
views and interests, might have power to determine their course and shape 
their destiny, without even the poor privilege being left of parting in peace 
though ruin might threaten to engulf them. It is not surprising that fanati- 
cism should be blind to truth, and regardless of justice ; and a knowledge of 
mankind teaches that self-interest often incapacitates persons for applying the 
plainest maxims of moral right ; but it may well excite astonishment that 
men of fair sense and intelligence in the general affairs of life, and uninfluenced 
by any apparent unworthy purpose, should frequently fail to perceive, and be 
ruled by the principles of political equity and right which underlie the ques- 
tion of government. And that they should even be sometimes unreasonable 
and inconsistent enough to believe, or profess to believe, that others have 
been guilty of an extreme of folly which, even to meditate in their case, would 
call for the restraints of a lunatic asylum. This is the mildest commentary 
that can be made on the argument of the centralists, that the Union cannot 
contemplate its own destruction ; while they imply that the sovereign States 
did provide for theirs — an implication which is sufficiently refuted by the au- 
thority of the great names to which reference has been already made, and the 
incorrectness of which is further shown by the letter of Washington to the 
Virginia convention in reference to the probable danger of reclaiming delegated 
powers, in which he says : " In resuming your sovereign powers," &c. The 
passage is singularly significant, for it grants both the existence of sovereign 
powers, and the right of resumption of them. No one will deny to Washing- 
ton the proudest pre-eminence of patriotism in the annals of his country ; it 
rested on unfaltering virtue, and unchanging truth. There stands his testi- 
mony. Dare any one impeach it 1 

The history of the formation and adoption of the Constitution, and the cor- 
respondence of the leading men of that epoch, engaged in its preparation and 
establishment, refer to the great apprehensions of many able and patriotic 
contemporaries of conflict of sovereignty between the State and General 
Governments, resulting eventually in the absorption of State powers, and a 
permanent central domination ; aud the experience of their posterity has 
shown that those apprehensions were not groundless. The frequency and 
danger of these encroachments, direct and indirect, upon the rights of the 
States, has become so great as to make it necessary in the judgment of some 
of them to consider the means of arresting the evil. The article of the Con- 



20 

stitution providing for its amendment, would naturally suggest itself to those 
complaining, either of its infractions, or defects, as being designed to afford a 
remedy. Let us examine how tar the expectation of the aggrieved, is likely to 
be gratified by this means. The article says, that " The Congress, whenever 
two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments 
to this Constitution, or on the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of 
the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments." And 
farther the amendments thus proposed must be " ratified by the Legislatures 
of three-fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths 
thereof" as may be proposed by Congress. This would put it in the 
power of two-thirds of Congress, or of a majority of a convention called by 
two-thirds of the State Legislatures — the proceedings to be ratified as above 
stated by a three-fourths vote — to destroy, in effect, if they should so will it, 
every vestige of State sovereignty, reserved right, and domestic institution, 
deemed at the time of the adoption of the Constitution sacred and inviolate. 
A given number of States can thus make such changes of the original compact, 
as may prove destructive of the interests of the rest, without hope of redress. 
Desperate indeed would be the fate of those, who, under an interpretation of 
political rights which affords no protection or relief outside of such a provision, 
have escaped from absolute rule, to become the victims of democratic despot- 
ism. Judge Story has recorded his deliberate opinion that " if there should 
be a corrupt cooperation of three-fourths of the States for permanent usurpa- 
tion, the case is certainly irremediable under any known forms of the Constitu- 
tion. The States may now, by a constitutional amendment, with few limitations, 
change the whole structure and powers of the Government, and thus legalize 
any present excess of power." For the justification of the oppressed, how- 
ever, and those whose rights have been violated, he further says, " If there be 
any remedy at all for the minority in such cases, it is a remedy never provided 
for by human institutions. It is by a resort to the ultimate right of all hu- 
man beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against 
ruinous injustice." It may be, as we often hear it flippantly said, that " our 
government is republican in its form, and the majority have a right to rule." 
The noisiest bells have the least silver in them — so windy wranglers have 
but little brains; were it otherwise, they would know that, in their upper 
house of Cougress, the little States of Rhode Island and Delaware, with their 
thousands of people only, have the same number of Senators as New York and 
Pennsylvania, with their millions ; and that the present President was elected by 
a minority oj 'the people of the United States. And further, that if the delegates 
of the larger States had insisted in the Constitutional Convention on the rule of a 
popular majority, there never would have been a Union of States. It is a sad 
experience of good citizenship, that those whose tongues are ever busiest in 
proclaiming the rights of the people, are- also those who in practice manifest 
the least regard for them. Those who have witnessed the ruffianism of popu- 
lar elections in the large cities of America, the "plug-ugly-ism of Native 
Americans," as it is now denominated, both at home and abroad, cannot fail to 
recall the outrages on free suffrage, and the brutal assaults on those who at- 
tempted to exercise it, within even the professed sanctuary of the voting 
"Precincts," by the demoniac advocates of American exclusiveness, American 
liberty, and American institutions, wrapped in the American flag and sheltered 
by its protecting folds ; countenanced by the smiles of a self-complacent re- 
spectable partizanship, too cowardly to dare, too bitter to forgive; and encour- 
aged by the active approval and participation of a pharisaical street-corner 
sectarian religionism, whose hate could only be appeased by persecution; 
and whose piety recognized the bloody hand as the highest claim to sanctifi- 



21 

cation. Noisy pretension and loud profession cannot be relied on as the 
surest guarantees of liberty and law. Some have said, and among them may 
be those who are well-meaning and sincere in their convictions, that there is 
no danger of a consolidated government, a centralized despotism, and disre- 
gard of constitutional rights in our country; that an attempt at such usurpa- 
tion of power would be promptly met by resistance, both of States and 
people. So, too, thought most of our forefathers. But if there had been no 
experience of earlier history to inculcate a different lesson, recent events have 
taught us the error of the opinion. True, the march of usurpation and 
tyranny has not been avowed, bold, fearless, and therefore majestic ; but it 
has not been less steady and sure because its progress was tortuous and 
hidden, and because encroachments were directed by a wily and specious 
policy. If it be answered that these could not have taken place unless 
authorized by the compact of Union, the answer is sustained by the records 
of the time, and none more strongly than by the testimony of Washington 
himself; that great difficulty was realized by the constitutional convention in 
" drawing with precision the line between those rights which must be sur- 
rendered, and those which may be reserved ;" that this " difficulty was in- 
creased by a difference among the several States as to their situation, extent, 
habits, and particular interests ;" that the result arrived at proceeded from 
" a spirit of amity, mutual deference, and concession, which the peculiarity of 
our political situation rendered indispensable," because in it was " involved 
our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence;" and hence 
" a sharp of liberty was given up to preserve the rest." It would be difficult 
to find in any letter of corresponding size more comprehensive information 
than is contained in that of Washington, from which the above passages are 
taken. We find therein set forth iu brief, and, none can doubt, in truthful 
terms, the difficulties eueountered by the convention engaged in the responsi- 
ble duty of proposing a form of government for the United States ; the spirit 
of amity, deference, and concession which animated it, and the objects to be 
secured — prosperity, /elicit;/, safety, and preservation of liberty. Observe, 
not for the destruction or endangering of these great ends, but for their at- 
tainment was the Constitution proposed, and so paramount were they deemed 
to all others, that, as is further declared, this consideration "led each State 
in the convention to be le*s rigid on points of inferior magnitude than might 
have been otherwise expected." 

A very intelligent, able, and generally very fair English writer, A. I. B. 
Beresford Hope, Esq. has fallen into the error of saying, when speaking of the 
" ambiguous" character of the Constitution of the United States, that " it was 
made so purposely. A straight forward document drawn up in the sense in 
which the North seeks to construe it, would never have received the assent of 
those thirteen jealous States, who then hated and distrusted each other only a 
little less than they did England." Granting, as we must in candor, the cor- 
rectness of Mr. Hope's opinion, that the Constitution never would have been 
adopted by the States, subject to' the interpretation since sought to be placed 
upon it, yet must it be said that he is wrong in the extent of his supposed 
State " hatred and distrust of each other." On the contrary the reality of a 
common cause, danger, suffering, effort, object, and attainment, destroyed for 
a time any great sectional animosities, and contributed to allay proneness to 
independent colonial pride and jealousy, which was mainly felt by the smaller 
States from the manifestations of the larger to secure a power proportionate 
to their real or prospective population. And as to his remark that the Consti- 
tution was made ambiguous purposely, it is so inconsistent with the magnitude 
of the interests the States had at stake, and with the character for honor, truth, 



22 

justice, fair dealing, and manliness of the chief actors of the occasion, that we 
must suppose it to have been made unreflectingly. The truth is, that the 
sense of separate .State freedom, sovereignty, and independence, as acknowl- 
edged by the treaty of peace with Great Britain, was so clear, that no one' 
State questioned the power of another to do " all acts and things which inde- 
pendent States may of right do." And it was too manifestly the interest of 
all to form a Union, that they might if practicable " establish justice, ensure 
domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general 
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty," to themselves and posterity, to 
give cause for doubt of their disposition to enter upon the work in a sincere, 
earnest and honorable manner. In the fulfilment of so important a duty, 
difficult questions might reasonably be expected to arise, about which conflict- 
ing views would be entertained. This happened — there was no concealment 
of opinions on points of difference, the debates were marked with great earn- 
estness, and disparity of views, aAd the result arrived at was publicly pro- 
claimed by the President of the Convention to have proceeded from "mutual 
deference and concession." Further guards of personal liberty and State 
rights were immediately found necessary to allay the apprehensions of jealous 
parties, whose interests were involved, and those were promptly provided. It 
is reasonable to suppose that the men of that day would have preferred to 
avoid ambiguity, for with their work to be reviewed by a people whose jeal- 
ousy on the subject of State rights was especially sensitive, there was too 
much danger that the whole object of the Constitution would be defeated by 
a detected scheme to deceive them, to barter away their undeniable privileges, 
or subject them to danger of controversy, and the assaults of aggressive 
authority. It may not be denied that the Constitution has defects, especially 
as considered in its application to the United States as they have presented 
themselves in recent history. But it should not be overlooked that we see 
these defects through media formed of late, and shaped by events the possible 
occurrence of which did not enter into the contemplation of the framers of the 
compact. The men of that day regarding the difficulties of effecting the 
adjustment which brought them together, and comprehending the true mean 
ing and intention of their engagements, had no difficulty, so long as they man' 
aged the government, to cause it to perform its functions harmoniously and 
satisfactorily. It was the men of another day, who, considering themselves 
better and wiser than those who bequeathed them a free country and its count- 
less blessings, and disregarding the purposes, examples and injunctions, of theii 
predecessors, sought to give that government a new direction, and to make it 
perform offices for which it was not intended. It does not come within the 
scope of my purpose to examine into the nature of these irregularities, how- 
ever momentous, as causes of the terrible catastrophe that has befallen oui 
country ; they are of secondary importance now, in the consideration of th( 
effects of that catastrophe upon human freedom. A planet has been Strieker 
from its orbit, and is wandering wildly about the sphere, jarring other harmo 
nies, and endangering the great principle itself which should hold all in theii 
appropriate place. What is to become of constitutional liberty in this war ol 
political elements? That is the question in which we are now most imme 
diately interested. 

We behold a number of free, sovereign, and independent States entering 
into a league for purposes specified in their bond of association, and whicl 
are, as before stated, " to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensun 
domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the genera 
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' 
These were the objects of the agreement for which certain grants of powe 



23 

were made — not surrendered by extinguishment of title — but delegated for 
the benefit of the parties conferring the grant. , No one, I presu:ne, will con- 
tradict the assertion, that but for such objects no union would have been 
sntered into, and no concession whatever to control, in any degree, their in- 
terests, would have been made by any of the States. By every word of the 
preamble, the good, not the injury of the parties to it, is contemplated ; and 
it cannot be denied that in providing the means to secure these ends, it was 
in contemplation that they could not, and would not, be used to their detri- 
ment. Granting these positions, it follows that imperfections of language, 
vagueness or generalities of expression, omission of ample provision for the 
3nforcement of evident purpose, or other defects of form of agreement, re- 
sulting from a generous confidence, or from limited intelligence, should not 
have been taken advantage of by any of the parties, to impair the interests 
or assail the rights of others ; but that, whenever doubt existed, an interpret- 
ation corresponding to the plain objects of the Constitution, should have ruled 
those entrusted with the administration of the general government, and have 
animated all who might have had an agency, in their selection. 

Some of the States believed, from a series of occurrences, both private and 
public, personal and official, factional and legislative, which they considered 
langerous to their interests and rights, and against which they repeatedly 
•emonstrated, protested, and petitioned, that it was the deliberate purpose of 
others of the States, if they should ever acquire the power, to destroy these 
rights and interests utterly. They long strove to avert the misfortune, but 
:he time having at last arrived when, in their judgment, it became necessa'v 
? or their safety to resume their delegated powers, they formally announced 
:heir separation from the Union, and proceeded to exercise the sovereign rights 
jf which they were possessed, in accordance with the declaration of our revo- 
lutionary fathers that "governments derive their just powers from tlte consent 
9f. the governed ; and that whenever any form of government becomes de- 
structive of the ends for which it is established, it is the right of the people 
:o alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundations 
m such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall 
seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." 

The enactment of such a scene was of painful import to those who re- 
mained behind, as to those who went forth from the political connection. Yet, 
%s an exemplification of the American doctrine of government, proclaimed, 
vindicated and reaffirmed, year by year, by all public deeds, and in every 
?orm of imposing declaration that could reach the ear of nations, that it is an 
nalienable right of " one people to dissolve the political bonds which have 
connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth 
uhe separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's 
Gl-od entitle them," there was in the act, as presented to the contemplation of 
i the true lover of liberty, a moral grandeur, to which the unfaltering purpose and 
.Unshrinking fearlessness of a State — sovereign and alone — solemnly affirming 
• aid consummating her right, teas in lofty keeping. 

! The assertion, that no provision being made in the Constitution for separa- 
tion, shows that it was not contemplated; that secession is therefore illegal, 
>r, as the phrase goes, unconstitutional, and must be resisted by power, is 
worthy only of the special pleader, who is incapable of rising above the level 
)f a county court trial table, its artificial rules and narrow technicalities, to 
;he higher sphere of the statesman, whose mind is enlarged and strengthened 
|>y the contemplation of vast interests and the great principles of truth and 
'■justice, which underlie, and were intended to be, the foundation of the compact 
;1 |)f union ; whose soul is lifted above the malignity, trick, and meanness of 



24 

low personal strife and part}' maneuvre ; whose virtuous sense of duty and 
lofty patriotism recognize no obligation to faction, no duties but of exalted 
station, no responsibility save that to a whole people, and no aspiration beyond 
the judgment : " Well done, goud and faithful servant." It has been the mis- 
fortune, and too often the fault of the United States, that the high offices, for 
which statesmen alone are fitted, have been occupied by political demagogues 
who have crawled up by devious ways, and so polluted positions of honor and 
trust by faithlessness and corruption, that high station ' has now almost 
become synonymous with " high crime " — as to " misdemeanor," that is the 
rule to which exceptions are rare. 

Withdrawal of a sovereign State from the Union is declared to be uncon- 
stitutional; and adherence to the provisions of the Constitution is authorita- 
tively proclaimed to be the obligation of duty, the proof of loyalty — for in 
these days of "Republicanism" the strongest phrase of monarchical subject 
allegiance has been deemed necessary. Then, what becomes of the title to 
"loyalty" and "sworn duty to the Constitution" — of those, who, to preserve _ 
the Union, the creature, have violated every declared object but one, and the 
most important provisions of the Creator — the Constitution itself ? There is 
not within the Constitution any grant of power to the Executive department 
of the Government of the United States to declare war, or to make war, upon 
any State either in or out of the Union. Does it not come either of mental 
imbecility, or of a spirit of usurpation, gravely to predicate such an act, upon 
an official oath "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution ?" The claim 
of such a power under such an obligation, would justify any other exercise of 
arbitrary authority that executive recklessness or despotism might dictate. 
And yet, such was the instant act of the present aggressive Administration of 
the general government, while the oath of office requiring it to protect a Con- 
stitution conferring upon another department, and not upon it, that power, 
was yet warm upon its lip : and that act coupled too with another, equally 
unconstitutional, calling out a military force to effect its purpose, unauthor- 
ized by law. 

But in this unconstitutional mode of preserving, protecting, and defend- 
ing the Constitution of the United States, by maintaining "a more perfect 
union," as it is expressed in the preamble of the compact, what becomes of 
the further duty devolved upon Executive power "to establish justice, insure 
domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general 
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity ?" 
Was it fulfilling the solemn obligations of that official oath to violate that 
"established justice" of equal rignts, secured to every state by the sacrifices 
and sufferings of a common ancestry '{ Was it insuring "domestic tranquilli- 
ty," to visit with war, bloodshed, devastation, famine, and servile insurreetiun, 
millions of free-born and high-spirited people .' Was it providing for the 
" common defense," to attack a part with the fearful enginery of death I Was 
it promoting the "general welfare," to destroy it throughout twelve Stales, 
and to over/urn the foundations of society and of industry, in many others \ 
Was it securing the blessings of liberty "to ourselves and our posterity," to 
strive to extinguish it among eight millions of our own race, and to endanger 
its perpetuity among twenty millions more ? These are questions, which, an- 
swered by the facts in the premises, strip the veil of affected integrity from 
the brazen face of wicked purpose, and expose the hideous features of a delib- 
erate design, to strike down the most beneficent scheme of government ever 
devised by the wisdom of men, for the well-being of the race whose represen- 
tatives they were, because it did not accord with the visionary theories of a 
wild and impracticable fanaticism, that has indeed "ruled in hell, rather than 



25 

serve in heaven." How else can we account for the after steps in the fierce 
plan of demolition 1 Is it necessary to refer to other proofs of disregard of 
official obligation ? To the " words of promise kept to the ear and broken to 
the hope V To the assaults on the Constitutional barriers raised for the pro- 
tection of the citizen, and his rights ? Where is that writ of habeas corpus, 
whose sanctity has for nearly two centuries, been a shield to the personal lib- 
erty of the Anglo-Saxon, and his descendants 1 Those who have been hitherto 
boastful of American institutions, and of personal security compatible with 
national power, and influence abroad, now blush and hide their shame, as the 
foreigner points to it, trodden under foot by presidential perfidy and usurpa- 
tion, while the deed of damning disgrace was encouraged by approving shouts 
of demoniac partizans, who cast themselves before the wheels of the idol they 
elevated, to be crushed amid the horrible saturnalia he has inaugurated. 

While I am engaged re-arranging these pages for the press, day by day the 
violations of the Constitution multiply so rapidly that one is apt to think that 
the whole instrument would be annulled by one dictatorial stroke of the pen, 
but for its use as a bliud to the half-willing, half-hesitating dupes of despotism. 
The authority " to coin money " is shamelessly converted into a right to manu- 
facture ad libitum thousands of millions of irredeemable paper currency, en- 
forced as a " legal tender," to the unsettling of all values, as gauged by the re- 
cognized standard of nations, both of labor and its products, and of real estate. 

The second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, requiring that 
" no person held to service or labor in a State shall be discharged from such ser- 
vice or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such ser- 
vice or labor may be due," is interpreted by many of the United States military 
authorities, occupying border States still maintaining their allegiance to the 
general Government, to mean, the duty of decoying slaves from their lawful ser- 
vice, and after using them during convenience for purposes of " military neces- 
sity " as servants and concubines, to forward them to the land of the " Puritan 
fathers " and of " steady habits," to be taught equally virtuous lessons of 
freedom. 

In the " loyal " colony of Maryland — for since the extinction of all right of suf- 
frage and free government by military rule within her borders, she has returned 
to her original condition of vassalage — whenever a servant elopes the military 
arm of the scat of government is stretched forth for protection, and the com- 
mandant at Washington gives a construction of exemption from arrest, to the 
constitutional injunction " shall be delivered up." 

The third section of the same article of the Constitution declares that "no new 
State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State with- 
out the consent of the legislature of the State concerned." ' And yet the glaring 
disregard of the fundamental law is boldly presented by Congress and the Presi- 
dent to the stupified — and it would be no disparagement to say stultified — gaze 
of the public, of admitting into the Union a State thus formed out of a part of 
the transmontane territory of Virginia, under the surveillance of a United States 
military force, and that too in disregard of the published opinion of the Attorney 
General, the legal adviser of the Government, who counselled the minions of 
despotism against the act. 

The fourth section of the same article provides that " the United States 
shall guarantee to every State of this Union a republican form of gov- 
ernment," that is, a government of the people, or of representatives 
elected by the people. How this guarantee has been assured was illus- 
trated in the State of Delaware by a military invasion, by command of 
government, which sought to overawe the election on which depended the 



26 

political opinions of its national and State reprensentatives. The elections in 
Maryland, as you well know, have degenerated into a servile endorsement by 
a corrupt fragment of intolerant " Know-Nothings," of the central government 
nominations, conducted under military supervision. And we have not yet re- 
covered from the astonishment excited by Major General Wool's imitation of 
the usurper Cromwell. That sanctimonious old hypocrite said, that the " good 
of the nation" required that the British Parliament should be dissolved, and 
stamping his foot for his soldiers to enter, exclaimed, " For shame, get you gone ; 
give place to honester men." The American copyist, told the recusant Balti- 
more City Council who did not deem it compatible with their official oath, and 
certainly not with their humane sympathies, to appropriate municipal funds 
for purposes of sectional war, that " the public peace required that they should 
resign." It was not necessary to produce the bayonets ; it was well known 
that the city was in military occupation. The Council comprehended the in- 
timation, and having the fear of General Wool before their eyes, and following 
the example of Parliament, gave place, if not to " honester men," at least to 
those whose 

"Candied tongues lick absurd pomp, 

And crook the pregnant hinges of the knees 
Where thrift may follow fawning." 

Might we not profit by the great historiau's lesson of wisdom, in connection 
with his description of Cromwell's unlawful proceedings ? He says : " by re- 
cent as well as all ancient examples, it was become evident that illegal violence, 
with whatever pretence it may be covered, and whatever object it may pursue, 
must inevitably end at last in the arbitrary and despotic government of a single 
person." 

And proud Kentucky, too, step-mother of him of eloquent renown, the gener- 
ous advocate of Liberty, from whatsoever far-off land its appeal came forth, 
listens now in her capital to the echoes of a military tyrant's tread, where in hap- 
pier days was heard naught but the flowing cadences of freedom, and the pat- 
riot's fearless denunciations of despotism and oppression. Let the name of 
General Q. A. Gilmore, who issued the infamous order, and of Colonel S. A. Gil- 
bert, of the United States army, who dispersed by force, at Frankfort, a conven- 
tion of peaceable citizens, assembled to exercise a constitutional right of nomi- 
nating for election their State officers, go down to posterity as the ruffianly vio- 
lators of the home of Henry Clay ! There stands Kentucky, mourned by sister 
States, sprung from her noble loins. There she stands, like Niobe,. all tears, 
crushed and dishonored 

" In her voiceless -woe ; 
An empty urn within her wither'd hands, 
AVhose holy dust was scattered long ago ; 
Her hero's tomb contains no ashes now; 
The very sculptures there lie tenantless 
Of their heroic dwellers ; dost thou flow, 
Ohio J past a verdant wilderness ? 
Rise with thy yellow waves, and mantle her distress ! " 

And wretched Missouri ! Born in agony, swaddled with unconstitutional 
restrictions, living in consequent ceaseless misery, to linger a compromised 
existence, and probably perish of fraternal violation ! What shall be said of 
the " guaranty " to her of a " republican form of government ?" Why, that 
that provision of the Constitution has been construed by the Executive to 
mean to subject her to the tender mercies of a " black republican " party 
discipline ! Let two Italian amateur philanthropists with whom I conversed, 
who came to America to aid the cause of universal liberty, received commis- 
sions in the United States army, served, with Kansas and Iowa troops in an 



27 

invSsion of the State of Missouri, witnessed and participated in the conduct 
of the war, and finally resigned " in disgust " to return to Europe, say what 
that means. The following is their testimony : " We had aided in freeing 
Italy from a foreign yoke, and came to America to help the cause of liberty. 
But we soon found that it was a war to enslave our own race, in violation of 
the principles of American independence, and also of the agreement on which 
the Union was formed. The essential element of liberty — the right of the 
people to elect without intimidation their representatives — was destroyed by 
the sword. We supposed, too, that the war would be conducted according to 
the well-established rules of civilized warfare, but we were horrified by the 
frequent cold-blooded murders — especially by the Kansas troops — of non-com- 
batant citizens, and by the brutalities and inhumanities of the most revolting 
kinds, committed on women and children by them and by the German soldiery. 
Eobbery was not deemed a disgrace, nor was it punished by military authority. 
Even the wearing apparel of women in many cases was taken from them, and 
sent by the soldiers to decorate their wives. We often thought that if the 
receivers had no more sense of decency than the thieves, that the American 
idea of justice and decency must fall very far short of the idealities of Italy. 
The hand of desolation was stretched out over the land, and it seemed as if 
some long sleeping volcano had suddenly burst forth ; for the vast prairies we 
traversed were covered with ashes and smouldering ruins. We thought if 
this was the civilization of this country, that we could not cooperate with a 
clear conscience in subduing those who had not harmed us, and who might be 
a great deal better people than the ruffians of whom we had seen enough. 
So we resigned, and are now returning to Sardinia. And we must say, that 
the Austrian persecutions and cruelties, from which we once suffered, were 
mild and merciful, and the Austrian yoke easy to be borne, compared with 
those to which the people of Missouri are subjected." If it were not en- 
croaching unwarrantably upon Executive privilege, of course it could not be 
violative of good taste, the expressive phraseology of an Executive State docu- 
ment might be borrowed, to say, that corroborative testimony on this head 
could be indefinitely " piled up." But it is better to listen^to the statements j 
of observing and fair-minded foreigners, who came with fac-ies and returned 
with facts. 

Let us consider other obligations of the Constitution, and the manner in which 
the oath of the President to " preserve, protect and defend" them has been 
fulfilled. 

Article the First of the Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law res- 
pecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or 
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," &c. In Baltimore, that city 
of America which has been noted for giving graves to its invaders and mon- 
uments to its defenders, and the metropolis of that State which was the first 
to proclaim religious toleration, a military tyrant by the name of Schenck, 
" dressed in a little brief authority, played the fantastic trick before high 
heaven," of draping, on a Sabbath morning, with the ensigns of war, a pulpit 
from which had been preached naught but the gospel of " peace and good 
will to man." And when the followers of the " meek and lowly Jesus," not 
resenting this invasion of their constitutional right of the "free exercise of 
religion," prayed that their persecutors might be forgiven, even as He did 
whose disciples they were, and sought afterwards to avoid cause of strife by 
worshipping their God elsewhere, they were followed into the by-ways by the 
minions of military despotism, and forhithlcn the privilege of prayer unless 
they flaunted the banner of blood in the face of their profession of peace. 



23 

Other cases of a similar character have occurred elsewhere, but the abSve 
shocked the sense of propriety of the immediate community, and I take it as 
one of the many examples of government violation of a constitutional right. 
Schenck was not rebuked by his superior, but still remains in command, like 
a plague spot on the body politic. And that, too, in further violation of the 
sixth section of the first article of the Constitution, which declares that " no 
person holding any office under the United States shall be a member of either 
House (of Congress) during his continuance in office," for Schenck was eight 
months since returned as a Black Republican member of the Thirty-eighth 
Congress, from Ohio, and on any day may be called on to dove-tail his civil 
and military functions in disregard of the fundamental law of the land — pos- 
sibly as chairman of the committee on military affairs setting in judgment on 
his own previous abuses of military trust. 

Hateful as have been the persecutors of religionism in all ages, modern 
civilization has affixed to such the brand of a special and enduring infamy. 
No matter what phase of pretended justification may be put forth to cover 
the deed, the christian's day of peace, and sanctuary of communion with his 
God, cannot be polluted by the invasion of violence without an eventual retri- 
bution on its authors. Victims there may be to-day, and the sufferings of 
martyrs, to gratify the vindictive passions of the intolerant and malevolent ; 
but the punishment which will repay such tyranny, tardy though it may be, 
will surely come ; if not with fire and sword, in that more fearful demoraliza- 
tion of society, in which an outward abandonment of real opinions but covers 
a cherished purpose of revenge ; a constant and debasing hypocrisy unsettles 
the social organization ; insincerity becomes the custom of life ; a generally 
vitiated public feeling approves successful deceit ; and the corrupted currents 
of life carry a moral pestilence into all personal and political relations. It is 
a terrible calamity for any country, or community, that its destinies are sub- 
ject to the will of men whose ignorance, or petty malice, disqualify them from 
recognizing, and being restrained by the emphatic teachings of history. 

As to the constitutional prohibition, in the same article, to abridge " the 
freedom of speech or of the press," the examples of violation of this great 
fundamental law by direct Executive instruction have become so numerous, 
and so variously modified, that European governments have ceased to main- 
tain their claim to supremacy of tyranny over the human mind, and its 
customary modes of communication. Richelieu is made to exclaim by the 
dramatist, "The pen is mightier than the sword!" If the great statesman 
lived now he would have to change his opinion ; for, while the sword has 
cleaved to the earth, and cast down the mightiest safeguards of American 
liberty, the pen is spurned by every churl ; and whenever it dares to question 
the political sanctity of administrative power, those who wield it realize its 
feebleness in the gloom of the dungeon, and the hopelessness of prolonged im- 
prisonment. The inviolability of the mail and the telegraph have ceased to 
be recognized, domestic treason is rewarded, the suppressed whisper of the 
street and the hotel are reported by the lurking detective, even the dumb 
colors of dress are made accusers, and any of these may meet a citizen at the 
police station, or the military provost marshal's office to consign him to a cell 
or a casemate, in proof of the constitutional '■'■freedom qfsjjeech. and of the 
press.'" It was once said by a South Carolina Senator, Mr. Hayne, distin- 
guished as much by his generosity as by his gallantry and ability, when speak- 
ing of the former people of New England : " I fully subscribe to the truth of 
the description given before the revolution by one whose praise is the highest 
eulogy, that the perseverance of Holland, the activity of France, and the dex- 



29 

trous*and firm sagacity of English enterprise, have been more than equalled 
by this recent people." Is it to this combination of inherited qualities, with 
the modern addenda of meanness and petty tyranny, that the poisonous vpas of 
espionage and censorship, transplanted from the deserts of foreign despotism 
to the virgin soil of American liberty, has been made to flourish with such sur- 
passing growth— that the whole land is slumbering in its fatal shade and 
breathing its atmosphere of death ? " Freedom of speech and of the press !" 
Where are these rights of the American citizen which the President is sworn 
to " preserve, protect and defend V Go ask the silenced printing presses, 
even of States, too blind or reckless to recognize their lost inheritance ! They 
may not answer, for fear has taught them the necessity if not the virtue of 
submission to arbitrary rule. But their mute look will a tale unfold of dread- 
ful import to him who yet clings to the memory of what his forefathers en- 
dured, and for what it was endured. If he should go to the Bastiles of New 
York and Boston, and there ask of the martyrs of free speech and a'free press, 
they may reply, if their jailers be not near, that Executive power deemed it 
expedient to amend practically the Article of the Constitution, conferring upon 
the citizen freedom of speech and of the press, without the tedious process pre- 
scribed by the fundamental laics of the land ; and that for a continued exercise 
of what they considered an inviolable right in resistance of arbitrary authority, 
the sanctity of their homes was invaded in further violation of the Fourth 
Article of the Amendments which guarantees the " right of the people to be 
secure in their persons, houses, &c." And they were torn from their 
homes and families at the midnight hour, and as some will say from 
the very seat of civil justice itself, by military ruffians, and dragged 
to distant dungeons, without the privilege of a hearing, and in dis- 
regard of all forms of law by which the rights of the citizens had been 
hitherto guarded. If, availing of . the rare privilege of admission to 
the horrid precincts of these military prisons, the visitor, recognizing among 
the unfortunate inmates some friends of happier days, asks why they are 
there? Most of them will reply, "I know not." Supposing them ignorant 
of their lawful rights, they may be told that the Fourth Article of the Amend- 
ments to the Constitution shields the citizen against seizure and search, with- 
out the issue of a "warrant upon probable cause, supported by an oath." 
They will reply, "we were seized, and our persons, houses, papers and effects 
searched by rude force, not by the authority of a civil warrant, hence we 
know nothing of the charge against us." But they may be told that the 
Fifth Article of the Amendments guards the personal liberty and rights of the 
citizen by declaring, that "no person shall be held to answer for a capital or 
otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand 
jury," and that, of course, if a capital or infamous criminal cannot be held with- 
out presentment, surely they cannot against whom no crime whatever has been 
charged. Their reply is, "here we are, nevertheless," But they are told 
that the hitherto unviolated, and supposed to be inviolable, writ of habeas 
corpus, which the Ninth Section of the First Article of the Constitution 
says "shall not be suspended" — except in cases which cannot apply to you 
of the far northern States — and which there is no constitutional power in the 
Executive to suspend, will liberate them, so that they may personally seek 
the interposition of justice. They answer, "our friends have tendered to the 
agents, and to the authors, of our arrest, any amount of bail that might be 
demanded, for our personal appearance when required. The offer has been 
treated with neglect, and sometimes the insolence of office has aggravated 
our injuries." But they are assured, that the laws delay, and the many 



30 

grievances of oppression of which they complain, are specially, and emphat- 
ically provided against, hy Article the Sixth of Amendments to the Constitu- 
tion, which reads, " In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the 
right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and dis- 
trict tvherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have 
been previously ascertained bylaw; and to be informed of the nature and cause 
of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have 
compulsory process^/?; - obtaining witnesses in his favor and to have the assistance 
of counsel for his defence." To which they rejoin, "we have been dragged 
hy force from our district and State to this distant prison, where we have lin- 
gered and been deprived of our accustomed comforts of life, and to the neg- 
lect of our families and the ruin of our business, for more than a year ; we 
have petitioned in vain for information of the nature and cause of the accusa- 
tion against us. Our solicitations to be confronted with our prosecutors have 
been disregarded, and our earnest appeals for a speedy andjwblic trial hare been 
unheeded. What must we infer but that there is a deliberate purpose on the 
part of the President to disregard the constitutional rights of the citizens ; to 
tread the fundamental law of the land under foot whenever it comes in con- 
flict with his will, and to hold nothing worth cherishing but the shadow of a 
Union, when the substance, the Constitution from which it sprang, has been 
utterly destroyed." Do you turn from this scene of cruelty — this proof of 
official perfidy, and inquire, why this comprehensive foreswearing of the 
President's duty to " preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the 
United States V Learn the answer in two words! "Military necessity!" 
Do you ask further, how the Executive can inflict the punishment of more 
than a year's imprisonment in an unaccustomed and severe climate, and under 
circumstances of peculiar suffering in many cases, upon persons who have 
been neither charged, indicted, nor tried for crime ; and in violation of the oath 
which demands an observance of Article the Eighth of the Amendments, 
which declares, that " excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines 
imposed, nor cruel an'd unusal punishments inflicted ?" Hear again the an- 
swer ! "Military necessity /" Do you refer to Article the Ninth of the 
Amendments, which says, " the enumeration in the Constitution of certain 
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the peo- 
ple," and Article the Tenth, which provides that " all powers not delegated to 
the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are 
reserved to the States respectively." And do you then ask the President, in 
view of the fact that the Constitution has not given to any department of the 
general Grovernment any right to interfere with the subject of domestic slav- 
ery ; and in view or the fact, that by the above Article it is expressly " re- 
served to the States respectively or to the people ;" how he could violate his 
oath of office which requires him to preserve, protect, and defend this com- 
pact, by usurping a power over the institution of domestic slavery in the 
States, to the extent of emancipating more than three millions of negroes, 
thereby destroying, as far as it lay in his power, the entire social and indus- 
trial systems, and possibly the political relations of the races in the Slave 
States 1 Again hear with amazement at its effrontery ; and indignation at the 
palpable perjury and usurpation, the answer / " Military necessity !" It 
comprises the reason, the rule, and we may add, the ruin ; for the latter catas- 
trophy is involved in a military dictatorship which overturns the principles of 
constitutional government, subordinates the "States and the people to the 
will of an irresponsible central power, which was clothed by a subservient 
Congress in its final agony of fanaticism, with the endorsement of unlimited 



31 

control over the political, financial, and military powers of every State, and 
over the liberty of every citizen. 

The doctrine of coercion, at all times the dictate of tyranny, no matter un- 
der what garb cither of monarchy or republicanism it may appear, once being 
countenanced in but partial application, speedily arrogates the prerogative of 
unlimited rale. Concede to it the right, or justify by approval its usurpation 
of privilege to overleap one constitutional barrier, and it will take the license 
to crush all that may stand in its way. Such has been the lesson taught by 
its aggressions in all ages. And the difficulties encountered, the loss of blood 
and treasure, and the centuries of suffering consumed in bringing the rule of 
government back within the limits of safety to constitutional liberty — the shield 
of the citizen's rights — have been so great, that the passions of party and even 
the madness of fanaticism might well pause before risking the dangerous and 
perhaps faj:al sacrafice, and inquire whether truth, justice, law, human right, and 
human welfare, would not be more surely promoted by other means than by 
the substitution of brutal violence, for God-like reason ? Whether " the bless- 
ings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," contemplated by the great 
charter of American freedom, and expressly provided for by the" wisdom of 
our forefathers, would not be made more secure by the spirit of peace, mutual 
concession of the rights of self-government, and the calm adjustments of com- 
promise, of which they gave us the light of their great example, than by un- 
loosing the demon of war, armed in the full panoply of destruction, to assail — 
not resist ; to attack the inherent rights of others — not to defend its own ? 
Once intoxicated by his own power, and profiting by 

"Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return 
To plague the inventor" — 

that fell spirit may become no respecter of persons, and not even the laws pro- 
posed by wicked instigators for his guidance, may serve to stay his bloody 
path to impartial despotism — thus does 

" Even-handed justice , 
Commend the ingredients of our poison'd chalice 
To our own lips." 

In the name of what is all this violation of the Constitution perpetrated 1 
Were it not that the soul is sickened by the frequent repetitions of the pre- 
posterous pretension, it would have transcended rational belief, that even the 
artifice and boldness of the demagogue would have pretended to do it ail in 
the name of the " Union, the Flag, and the Constitution." The Union, whose 
great object it was to secure "the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our 
posterity !" The Flag, which was adopted, and until now has ever floated 
as the emblem of a voluntary association, or Union of freedom — not a Union 
of force — on which every ancient stripe maintained its distinctness, every 
added star shed its separate light ; the radiant teacher of what was designed 
to be an everlasting truth. And which would have remained so, butlhat 
American Abolitionists pronounced it a " flaunting lie," and thus have striven 
to prove it. And the Constitution, scarcely a vestige of which has been shown 
to be left undefiled by the hands of Executive violation. He who would, five 
years since, have predicted such an exhibition of official impudence, would 
have been pronounced a fool. Yet daring as is the effrontery of the impos- 
ture, a whole people stand by paralyzed by fear, duped by deceipt, deluded by 
calculations of interest, or frenzied by partizan passion, and endorse, by silence 
or sanction, deeds destructive of man's right of self-government, of the funda- 



32 

mental laws of the land and of that great bond of nature which should teach 
even vaulting ambition, that with a kinsman 

" He should against the murderer shut the door, 
A'ot bear the knife himself." 

And what, it may now be asked, is the crime of the Southern States of 
America, on whom the terrible vengence of war to the extent of subjugation 
or extermination is being waged by their kinsmen of the North, even at the 
cost of such fearful sacrifices .' Ponder well the answer, and apply the un- 
changing principles it involves to the dreadful issue we are contemplating, as 
becomes Americana ; who have at all former times, lindeviatingly maintained 
man's right of self-government, and given him the willing word of encourage- 
ment, wherever he may have asserted that prerogative, whether in Greece 
or Italy ; in France, Hungary, or Poland ; in Mexico, or Central, America; 
in Columbia, Peru, or Chile ; and last, not least, in that strangely fated State 
of Texas, doomed to a second struggle for freedom ; though now assailed by 
the same people who once generously asserted for her the claim against op. 
pressors, they seem at present to consider it no disgrace to imitate. 

What was the crime of these Southern States justifying in the opinion of 
the Imperialists, the fearful penalty of war 1 The dissolution of their politi- 
cal connection with other States. The withdrawal from an association, by 
virtue cf the same inherent sovereign power which enabled them to enter into 
it. That i i the head and front of the offence. The right of withdrawal is 
denied by the supporters of an Imperial centralization of power; and the 
bond of Union, and that alone is produced to prove the loss of title to 
withdraw. 

Looking merely at that instrument, for the present, what do we find ? That 
certain limited powers were delegated by " free sovereign and independent 
States," for specified purposes of mutual good, and that all others were re- 
served. The greatest of all powers growing out of the highest of all duties, 
is that of self-preservation. It is not pretended that it was surrendered by the 
restricted grant. To hava done so would have been an act of self-immolation, 
evidently not designed, as shown by the emphatic, annunciation of reserved 
jiowers. It is therein that the several States find their safeguard, when their 
rights are wantonly attacked by aggressive central power; their domestic 
welfare threatened with ruin, reserved powers invaded, unalienated sovereign- 
ty assailed, and of consequence their independent existence endangered, by 
the encroachment and usurpation of the agents of a restricted trust. The 
Imperialists — for there are such advocates of unlimited supreme power in re- 
publics, as well as in empires — say, that in such cases, the redress of grievance 
must be sought in the Supreme Court of the United States. This comes 
with an ill grace from those who, with unrestrained insolence, contemned its 
authority, and invalidated its decisions ; and the inaugural message of whose 
single President, was an assault upon its ancient precedents, which culmina- 
ted in the barefaced perjury of disregarding its never-before violated writ of 
habeas corpus. We do not follow their scandalous example of contempt for that 
august tribunal, when we answer, that the judicial authority of that Court 
does not reach the case of sovereignty contemplated. Its prerogative is de- 
clared in the Constitution to " extend to all cases arising under the Constitu- 
tion, the laws of the United States, and the treaties made under their authority, 
ity, and to controversies to which the United States shall be a party." But the 
preposterous assumption, that other nations, parties to " treaties " and " con- 
troversies " with the United States, in virtue of their Constitution and laws, 



33 

would be bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, 
would be instantly rejected by common sense. For the simple reason, that 
their own sovereignty cannot admit, without derogation of inherent right, and 
danger to its perpetuation, an arbiter in another power. It determines for 
itself the act of grievance, as well as the remedy. In the matter of sover- 
eignty, and its preservation, the States are in the same condition. They have 
never parted with it, nor can such alienation be shown either by the letter, or 
the spirit, of the written bond of association. Originally asserting their 
freedom and independence, these were eventually conceded by definitive treaty 
with Great Britain, in which each State was acknowledged to be " free, sover- 
eign, and independent." Each State proceeded to exercise its sovereign pow- 
ers, not by a general surrender, fusion, and consolidation of these into one, but 
by certain stipulations of alliance far the reciprocal benefit of advantageous 
intercommunication, and external intercourse and relation ; each, however, re- 
taining and exercising in its own sphere, its independent sovereign attributes 
of legislative, judicial, and executive functions ; while the proof of its 
unrelinquished sovereignty, even in matters of an exterior, and common inter- 
est with others, has been shown in its periodical re-nominations of delegates 
to perforin that trust. 

We are informed by Luther Martin, one of the ablest and most patriotic of 
the members of the Convention which formed the Constitution, in his report 
of proceedings to the Legislating of the State of Maryland, that the proposi- 
tions originally submitted to the Convention, were debated, altered, and finally 
reported by the Committee of the Whole House by a small majority, embrac- 
ing among other resolutions the following : " That it is the opinion of this 
Committee, that a National Government ought to be established, consisting of 
a supreme Legislature, Judiciary and Executive." 

Mr. Martin further informs us that in the Convention were " three parties of 
different sentiments and views. One, whose object and wish it was to abolish 
and annihilate all State Governments, and to bring forward one General Gov- 
ernment over this extensive continent of a monarchical nature. A second 
party was not for the abolition of the State Governments, nor for the intro- 
duction of a monarchical government under any form, but they wished to 
establish such a system as would give their own States undue, influence and 
power in the government over the other States. A third party was truly 
federal and republican, and for proceedings on terms of federal equality" He. 
likewise states that "the favorers of Monarchy, and those who wished the 
total abolition of the State Governments, well knowing that a government 
founded on truly federal principles, the basis of which were the thirteen State 
Governments preserved in full force and energy, would be destructive of their 
views, and knowing they were too weak in numbers openly to bring forward 
their system ; conscious also, that the people of America would reject it if 
proposed to them, joined their interest with that party who wished a system 
giving particular States the power and influence over the others, procuring in 
return mutual sacrifices from them, in giving the government great and unde- 
fined powers as to its legislative and executive, well knowing that by depart- 
ing from a federal system, they paved the way for their favorite object, the de- 
struction of the State Governments and the introduction of Monarchy." Never- 
theless, in the face of this formidable combination of monarchists, and the 
selfish, we learn from the "secret proceedings and debates of the Convention" 
by Chief Justice Yates, and Chancellor Lansing of New York — members of 
that Convention — that, that body responded to the opinion of Mr. Patterson of 
New Jersey, who said, " We are met here as the deputies of thirteen independ- 



24 

cnt sovereign States for federal purposes. Can we consolidate their sovereignty 
and form one nation, and annihilate the sovereignties, of our own States, who 
have sent us here for other purposes V And that of Mr. Lansing of New 
York, who said " I am clearly of opinion, that I am not authorized to accede 
to a system which will annihilate the State Government." And in acting upon 
the resolution above quoted, on motion of Judge Ellsworth of Connecticut, 
" expunged the word national, and placed in the room of it, government oj the 
United States, which was agreed to ncm con'' This was in strict accordance 
with the objects of the Convention. The credentials of its members showed 
clearly, that these were to revise the Articles of the Confederation already 
formed, not to form a National Government. " What have the people said 1 
We find the Confederation defective. Go and give additional powers to the 
Confederation, give to it the imposts, regulation of trade, power to collect the 
taxes, and the means to discharge our foreign and domestic debts ! As their 
ambassadors, can we not clearly grant these powers 1 why then, when we are 
met, must entire, distinct, and new ground be taken, and a government, of 
which the people had no idea, be instituted ?" It will be remembered that the 
Second Article of Confederation declared that "each State retains its sover- 
eignty, freedom and independence," a reservation of title which the monar- 
ch cal party was especially solicitous to extinguish, but this would have been a 
daugerous concession in the estimation of the genuine patriots of that day, 
who, with Judge Ellsworth, "wanted domestic happiness" as well as general 
security. " A general government," said that wise man, " will never grant 
me this, as it cannot know my wants, or relieve my distress. My State is 
only as one out of thirteen. Can they, the General Government, gratify my 
wish ] My happiness depends as much on the existence of my State Govern- 
ment, as a new born infant depends upon its mother for nourishment." 

The idea of State sovereignty has never been lost sight of by those who have 
had intelligence enough to comprehend the system of government of the 
United States, and sufficient patriotism to desire to perpetuate its blessings 
to the whole country, from the epoch of its assertion, 1776, through all the 
vissitudes of its progress, down to the advent of Republican Imperialism in 
1861. Nor could it have consented to make an aggressive party the judge 
of its own act of wrong, to submit a question involving its own existence to 
the arbitratment of its assailant, without parting with its power of self-pre- 
servation. Further, the express reservation in the articles of association of all 
beyond the limited delegation of powers to be used for its benefit — not for its 
injury, let it be borne in mind — shows conclusively the jealous watchfulness of 
State sovereignty, and the studious care with which it designed to retain the 
power to guard its safety. If all this were not manifest from a rational in- 
terpretation of the Constitution, it might be made evident by the collateral 
history of its formation, by the subsequently expressed opinions of the leading 
authors of the Federal Government, and by the declarations of enlightened 
statesmen since, whose ability and patriotism have been universally acknowl- 
edged. Let us recall a few of these : 

In 1798 the Gemral Assembly of Virginia, considering that certain acts of 
the General Government were in violation of the Constitution of the United 
States, adopted the following among other resolutions, to wit : " The Gene- 
ral Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the pow- 
ers of the Federal' Government as resulting from the compact to which the 
States are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instru- 
ment constituting that compact, as no further valid than they are authorized 
by the grant s enumerated in that compact ; and that in case of a deliberate, 



35 

palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said com- 
pact, the States who are parties thereto have the right, and are in duty bound 
to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within 
their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to 
them." 

The subject to which the above resolution refers, came up again for con- 
sideration in the same General Assembly at the session of 1799, 1800 ; on 
which occasion the celebrated report, familiarly known as Mr. Malison's, and 
expressing that great stateman's opinions, was adop ed. In that report is 
contained the following declaration : " It appears to your Committee to be a 
plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and 
essential to the nature of compacts, that where resort can be had to no tribu- 
nal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the 
rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued 
or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanc- 
tion of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the 
stability and dignity of, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it 
rests upon this legitimate and solid foundation. The States, then, being the 
parties to the Constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it fol- 
lows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority to decide 
in-the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated, and con- 
sequently that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last 
resort such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their inter- 
position." And contemplating the resolutions of 1798, Mr. Madison's report 
adds further : " From this view of the resolution it would seem inconceivable 
that it can incur any just disapprobation from those who, laying aside all mo- 
mentary impressions, and recollecting the geuuiue source and object of the 
Federal Constitution, shall candidly and accurately interpret the meaning of 
the General Assembly. If the deliberate exercise of dangerous powers pal- 
pably withheld by the Constitution, could not justify the parties to it in inter- 
posing even so far as to arrest the progress of the evil, and thereby to pre- 
serve the Constitution itself, as well as to provide for the safety of the parties 
to it, there would be an end to all relief from usurped power and a direct sub- 
version of the rights specified or recognized under all the State Constitution?, 
as well as a plain denial of the fundamental principles on which our indepen- 
dence itself was declared." Kentucky responded to the Virginia Resolutions 
of 179S, by the adoption of others well known to have been penned by the 
author of the Declaration of American Independence. In one of these, be- 
fore quoted, Mr. Jefferson says : " The Government, created by the compact, 
was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers dele- 
gated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Consti- 
tution the measure of its powers ; but that as in all cases of compact among 
parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for 
itself as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress." In the 
protest prepared by Mr. Jefferson for the Legislature of Virginia, in 1S25, in 
respect to what were considered unwarrantably exercised powers by the Fede- 
ral Government, he thus expresses himself — the acts complained of are " usur- 
pations of the powers retained by the States, mere interpolations into the 
compact, and direct infractions of it ;" and reasserting the principles of the 
Virginia Resolutions of 1798, protests against " these acts of the Federal 
braneh of the Government as null and void," and declares that, " although 
Virginia would consider a dissolution of the Union as among the greatest 
calamities that could befall it, yet it is not the greatest. There is one yet 



36 

greater — submission to a government of unlimited powers. It is only when 
the hope of this shall become absolutely desperate, that further forbearance 
could not be indulged." 

And in a letter written to Mr. Giles about the same time, he says — " we 
must have patience and long endurance with our brethren, and separate from 
our companions only when the sole alternatives left are a dissolution of our 
union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of power, 
Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation." 

And what said Massachusetts in a memorial of her leading citizens, adopt- 
ed in Faneuil Hall, January 25th, 1809, in reference to this same right of 
self-protection from the operation of unconstitutional acts 1 With an equal 
confidence in State sovereignty, they declared that " they look only to the 
State legislature, who were competent to devise relief against the unconstitu- 
tional acts of the General Government. That your power (they add) is ade- 
quate to that object, is evident from the organization of the confederacy." 
The following extract from Bradford's History of Massachusetts, will show 
also where that state once stood in this respect, and what was the opinion of 
the celebrated Fisher Ames, who was a member of the convention that rati- 
fied the Constitution, and who subsequently represented Boston and the sur- 
rounding districts in Congress during the whole period of Washington's ad- 
ministration. " No objection to the Constitution was more powerful than that 
arising from a tendency to a consolidation of States." "This," said Mr. Ames, 
"was an effect which all good men would deprecate. The State Governments 
he said, ' were essential parts of the system. The Senators represented the 
sovereignty of the States ; in the other House the whole people were represent- 
ed. If the Senators were chosen by the people as the Representatives were, 
a consolidation of State Governments would ensue ; which, it is conceded, 
would subvert the new Constitution. Too much provision cannot be made 
against consolidation. The State Governments are the safeguards and orna- 
ments of the Federal Constitution. They will protract the period of our lib- 
erties ; they will afford a shelter against the abuse of power, and will be the 
natural avengers of our violated rights.' Although extensive power was 
vested in the General Government, of which the Constitution was to be the 
foundation, and although it was purposely designed to give authority to a 
Federal legislature for the welfare of the United States that the new Consti- 
tution had been formed, still it was believed by all, that no power was to be 
claimed by the national government except such as was expressly given ; and 
that all besides was reserved to the individual States and to the people. Had 
it been supposed that authority would be exercised, founded only upon con- 
struction or influence, it is probable the Constitution would not have been 
adopted by a majority of the States." 

One of the most distinguished of New England's Senators (Mr. Hillhouse) 
declared, too, in the Senate of the United States, in a speech on the bill for 
enforcing the embargo which preceded the war of 1812 with Great Britain — 
" I feel myself bound in conscience to declare, (lest the blood of those who 
shall fall in the execution of this measure shall be on my head,) that I con- 
sider this to be an act containing unconstitutional provisions, to which the 
people are not bound to submit, and to which, in my opinion, they will not 
submit." 

And Josiah Quincy, an able and honored member from Massachusetts, than 
whom no one could have more truly and faithfully represented the opinions 
and feelings of that State, declared on the floor of Congress, in the discussion 
of the bill to admit Louisiana into the Union, " If this 'bill passes, it is my 



37 

deliberate opinion that it is virtually a dissolution of the Union ; that it will 
free the States from their moral obligation ; and as it will be the right, of all, 
so it will be the duty of some, to prepare for a a separation, arnica///// if' they 
can, violently if [they must." And further — in 1843 — when the question of 
the annexation of Texas was before the country, the Legislature of Massa- 
chusetts passed the following resolutions, viz. : 

" Resolved, That the annexation of Texas is ipso facto, a dissolution of the 
Union." 

"Resolved, That Texas being annexed, Massachusetts is out of the Union." 

Not deterred by this assertion of right by the leading New England State, 
the regularly constituted authorities of the remaining States proceeded to 
annex Texas. Massachusetts, by the unrepealed Act of her Legislature, was 
thus a seceded State. Her former associates, not denying her sovereign 
rights, willingly permitted her withdrawal, and when wiser counsels prevailed 
among her people, threw no impediments of taunt or threat in the way of 
reconciliation and peaceful relations. Should not that State, the recipient of 
such great consideration and forbearance, have been the first to advise the ex- 
ercise of a generous spirit of conciliation, if not justice, instead of instigating 
a fierce war upon " erring sisters," who but imitated her example in declaring 
their withdrawal from the Union ? 

Washington, on counseling Virginia on the proposition of "resuming her 
sovereign rights," admitted the power to do so. Jefferson, on another occa- 
sion, said explicitly, " States can wholly withdraw their delegated powers." 
Alexander Hamilton, one among the ablest statesmen of the Revolutionary 
epoch, and regarded as the firmest and most eloquent advocate of a strong 
central government, declared, with remarkable emphasis, on this subject — 
" The rule that all authorities of which the States are explicit/// divested in 
favor of the Uaion, remain with them in full vigor, is not only a theoretical 
consequence of that division, but is clearly admitted by the whole tenor of the 
instrument which contains the articles of the Constitution. It may safely be 
received as an axiom in our political system, that the State Governments will, 
in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the 
public liberty by national authority. In a confederacy, the people, without 
exaggeration, may be said to be entirely masters of their own fate." 

And the leading constitutional lawyer of New England, Daniel Webster, 
at a later day, in discussing the doctrine of Mr. Madison's Virginia resolu- 
tion, said : " What does the Declaration purport? Does it mean no more 
than that there may be extreme cases in which the people, in any mode of 
assembling, may resist usurpation, and relieve themselves from a tyrannical 
government? No one will deny this. Such resistance is not only acknowl- 
edged to be just in America, but in England also. Blackstone admits as 
much, in the theory, and practice, too, of the English constitution. We, sir, 
do not deny that the people may, if they choose, throw off any government, 
when it becomes oppressive and intolerable, and erect a better in its stead. 
We all know that civil institutions arc established for the public benefit, and 
that when they cease to answer the ends of their existence they may be changed?* 

This throwing off of a government inimical to their security and happiness 
by a people, requires no stipulations for'its rightful exercise, as has been fully 
shown by the opinions of the ablest American statesmen, already referred to. 
If such needed the support of one of the most distinguished jurists of this 
country, it could be given in the language of Judge Joseph Story, who, in his 
commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, says, " It would, 
indeed, be an extraordinary use of language to consider a declaration of rights, 



38 

in a constitution, and especially of rights, which it proclaims to be unalienable 
and indefeasible," to be a matter of contract, and resting on such a basis, 
rather than a solemn recognition and admission of those rights, arising from 
the law of nature, and the gift of Providence, and incapable of being transferred 
or surrendered" Is it necessary to produce other authority in support of the 
rights of the States ? If so, a startling mass of testimony might be produced 
from among those who are now the most clamorous advocates of an inviolable 
Union. But the citation of such witnesses would be a desecration of the 
memories of those whose names have already been referred to in this connec- 
tion. We hope, however, it may not be considered too great a derogation from 
the dignity of the subject, to refer to Senator Seward's opinion of the inviola- 
bility of the Constitution, the creator of the Union, which his oft-repeated 
oaths to support as the supreme law it would be difficult to number. , That 
somewhat prominent person said, in one of his remarkable speeches : " The 
Constitution regulates our stewardship ; the Constitution devotes the domain to 
Union, to justice, to welfare, and to liberty. But there is a higher law than 
the Constitution, which regulates our authority over the domain and devotes 
it to the same noble purposes." 

If any one could have a doubt of the meaning of Mr. Seward's artistic 
phraseology, covering as studied a purpose, they may be enlightened by his 
frequent participation in the presentation of prayers from sanctimonious 
Northern -people for a dissolution of t\e Union. The interest thrown around 
one of these, by a really great name connected with the occasion of its being 
offered, will justify its being recalled to memory. I quote from the record. 
" On the 1st of February, 1850, petitions praying a dissolution of the Union 
were presented in the Senate by Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire. 

Mr. Webster, of Massachusetts, suggested that there should have been a 
preamble to the petitions in these words : 

"Gentlemen members of Congress, Whereas at the commencement of the 
Session, you and each of you took your solemn oaths in the presence of God and 
on the holy Evangelists, that you would support the Constitution of the United 
States ; now, therefore, we pray you to take immediate steps to break up the 
Union and overthrow the Constitution of the United States as soon as you 
can ; and in duty bound we will ever pray." 

But three Senators voted for the reception of the petitions, viz. : 

Messrs. Chase, Hale and Setvard." 

All Northern Senators, it will be observed, whose acts then, show the hy- 
pocrisy of their present professions of regard for the Constitution and the 
Union ; and the indefensible character of a war unprecedented for wide-spread 
calamity, of which they were chief instigators, and are the most relentless 
prosecutors. While the Southern States always consistently maintaining 
their right to revoke their delegated powers and fall back on reserved 
sovereignty if needful to their security, were yet seen presenting a united dis- 
approval of proceedings calculated to disturb the harmony of the political 
association, and not taking definitive action demanded by considerations of 
their safety, until all efforts for the promotion of justice and harmony were 
exhausted. When the temblor of the political earthquake was felt beneath 
their feet, and the pillars of the Constitution were riven, then, and not until 
then, did they seek to escape the "irrepressible" ruin, long threatened, and 
about to overtake them. The compact entered into by their fathers guaran- 
teed to them the management of their domestic affairs in their own way, and 
the continuance of the States, part free and part slave, as they might deter- 
mine. The President elect had declared that this could no longer be — " that 



39 

this country must be all free, or all slave." Not doubting his sincerity of 
purpose, aware of the formidable power he might wield to make good his 
declaration, considering it violative of the original agreement, and incompati- 
ble with their safety to remain longer in the league, and desiring to retain, 
untrammeled by uncertain or inimical political relations, the disposition of 
their own destiny as sovereign States, some of these determined to " dissolve 
the political bauds which connected them with others," in accordance with 
their prescriptive right under their great Charter of Liberty — the Declara- 
tion of Independence — and to " institute a new government in such form us to 
them should seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." 

That the anticipations of evil from a pro-forma Federal Union, when the 
spirit which had animated it was dead, were not erroneous, have been so far 
confirmed by the progress of events as to place all question of their correct- 
ness beyond controversy, and to give to the predictions of Southern statesmen 
the accuracy of prophecy. Indeed, the barriers of the Constitution, both 
with regard to the rights of the States and the rights of the citizen, even to* 
the safeguards of personal liberty, have been entirely stricken down by arbi- 
trary power, and the whole country has truly assumed one of the conditions 
designated by the President in his laconic declaration of war on the Constitu- 
tion, and, humiliating as it may be to a once free American to acknowledge 
it, has become " all slave ! " 

The policy of coercion, the very intimation of which caused Mr. Mason, of 
Virginia, in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, to spring to his feet and 
exclaim indignantly : " What, would you use military force to compel the ob- 
servance of a social compact 1" — but now adopted by this Administration for 
the nominal maintenance of the Federal Union ; the wisdom of which was 
reprobated by some who earnestly desired its fraternal perpetuation, as not 
adapted to a government founded on compromise, and at variance with the 
habits of thought and action of a free people, yet sustained by many in the 
Northern States of uncompromising prejudices and arbitrary impulses ; is in- 
deed proving the ingredient of a poisoned chalice commended to their own 
lips by the hireling tools of a despotic master. Eemembering that this 
was once the " laud of the free," and contemplating its present debasement, 
in some of the States, to the utter loss of all civil and political rights, we may 
well exclaim : 

" Spirit of Freedom ! When on Phyle's brow 
Taou sat'st with Thracybulus anil his tram, 
Couldst thou t'orbode the dismal hour which now 
Dims the green beauties of this proud domain? 
No foreign tyrant now doth weld thy chain, 
But every carle can lord it over thee. 
What, shall reviving Thraldom again be 
The pateh'd up idol of enlightened days? 
Shall ye who struck the Lion down, shall ye 
Pay the wolf homage ? Proffering lowly gaze 
And servile knees to tools ? Your sires would spurn your praise ! " 

The war of brute force upon the declared freedom, sovereignty and inde- 
pendence of States, is a war upon the spirit of 1688 and 1776 ; upon the 
spirit of the Constitution, and upon the declared intentions and oft-repeated 
interpretations of its eminent framers. Its substitution for reason is also a 
fatal step backwards in the science of government. Mr. Madison declared 
that " a Union of States containing such an ingredient as force, seemed to 
provide for its own destruction," and that " any government for the United 
States, formed on the supposed practicability of using force against even the 
unconstitutional proceedings of the States, would prove visionary and 
fallacious." 



40 

Mr. Hamilton, one of the ablest of America's great era of statesman, said* 
" to coerce the States, is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. 
Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a government which 
makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself?" Daniel Web- 
ster, at a time when the bands of the Union were strained to their utmost ten- 
sion, exclaimed : " Sir, for one, I protest in advance against such (military) 
remedies, as I have heard hinted. With a constitutional and efficient head 
of the Government, with an Administration really and truly, in favor of the 
Constitution, the country can grapple with nullification. By the force of 
reason, by the progress of enlightened opinion, by the natural genuine patriot- 
ism of the country, and by the steady and well-sustained operations of law, 
the progress of disorganization may be successfully checked, and the Union 
maintained;" Well would it have been for the destinies of America, if such 
wisdom ruled the counsels of this country in our day ! If Stephen A. 
Douglas' warning voice had been listened to when he declared in the Senate 
"of the United States, " War is Disunion ! " If those in whose hands is re- 
posed the responsible trust of administering the government of a great peo- 
ple, and involving the destinies of untold millions, appreciated the solemn 
truths, that war is the greatest evil known to mankind, the one from which 
the most suffering has come next to religious persecution ; that while offensive 
wars are recognized as unjust, those of defense are deemed just, and whatever 
reverse may attend them for a time, in the end prove stiecessful ; and that, as 
applied to the present controversy, coercion is a practical repudiation, J>ej'ore. 
the tcorld, of the hitherto proudly promulgated American axioms that, "gov- 
ernments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that 
it is the right of the people to alter and abolish, and to institute new govern- 
ment." With this demonstrative violation of the doctrine of self-government, 
seen by all, the affectation by the supporters of the American war of deep 
concern for the cause of human freedom and constitutional liberty, and their 
spread through other lands, is too palpable and ludicrous to impose upon even 
the familiar dupes of tyranny ; and in the eyes of victims of foreign oppres- 
sion doubtless appears a rather inhuman irony. A sincere sympathy with 
these certainly wouldjnculcatea consistent adherence at home to the princi- 
ples of free government loudly professed abroad. 

Viewed from our present standpoint, we now behold on this continent the 
two political powers of 'Republican Imperialism rapidly verging to Monarch- 
ical Imperialism, and State Confederation with reservation of Indcp>endence 
when threatened with danger, standing in hostile attitude to each other. 
Every man within the limits of the former Union must face the question 
coming of this contemplation, and say upon which side he will range himself; 
and it is because of this responsibility that I have endeavored thus to ascer- 
tain my own duty, and to aid you in determining yours. 

The whole history of government shows that the centralization of power is 
dangerous to the liberties of the citizen." And the records of Anglo-Saxonism 
especially illustrate the perpetual antagonism of the despotic and popular 
elements, and these curity of the latter, just in proportion to their preservation 
of local self-government. And on the other hand, it has been seen that, as 
power has been parted with by the many, and responsibility has ceased, the 
grasping hand of usurpation has speedily seized all, and wielded it to its own 
aggrandizement and perpetuation, and to the oppression of those from whom 
it was derived, and who become but the slavish registers of its will. 

The grandeur and glare of national glory, as represented by the capacity of 
aggression and display of physical force, are an equivalent with some for the 



41 

loss of personal right, who fail to see that these become the means of greater 
degradation, and final slavery. But the true patriot, and sincere lover of 
liberty, can find nothing in the externals of national splendor, to repay him for 
his sense of personal humiliation and political debasement. 

The history of the formation of the Federal Government of the United 
States shows plainly that it was the intention of its founders to guard 
against centralization ; and yet within the first .century from the completion 
of their work, we behold it being rapidly transformed into an Imperialism of 
more comprehensive might than any which has preceded it. For while it 
holds forth the gilded promise of freedom to delude the unwary, and make 
them the ready instruments of extending its influence, its steadily increasing 
dominion already spreading from ocean to ocean, will ere long, unless checked 
in its present assumptions, embrace the resources of a continent, and the force 
of a hundred millions of inhabitants. 

^ Of the effect of this enormous concentration of power upon the future of 
European nationalities it is unnecessary to our purpose to speak. If England 
and France, particularly, possess the intelligent statesmanship for which they 
have of late enjoyed reputation, they will comprehend the problem now offered 
for their consideration, and the necessity that may hereafter be devolved upon 
them of conciliating the one will which may be empowered to determine its 
solution. 

But we, of America, cannot contemplate this colossal power established 
upon the ruins of State rights ; the firmly seated rule of usurpation which has, 
unchallenged, moved onward to a conceded dictatorship over the wreck of the 
Constitution; the bold defiance with which every legal restraint has been 
stricken down; the recklessness of responsibility ; and the influence of such an 
example upon the future destiny of this country, with the agencies that may 
be wielded under such sanctions for the perpetuation of the wicked conspiracy 
against constitutional liberty ; without feeling the solemn duty of resistance to 
the domination of Imperialism in America. No personal fate can be worse 
than that of arbitrary imprisonment, at the will of a master ; no political deg- 
radation lower than that of disfranchisement; the former all live liable to at 
any moment, and witness daily in the case of others; the latter is already the 
doom of the people of some of the States, for in them the test oath and the 
bayonet, virtually cancel the freedom of suffrage. 

The fate of a people subject to the arbitrary will of an unchanged ruler for 
a period of natural life, has been deemed by freemen a dire calamity. And 
yet a satiated tyranny, and wearied spirit of oppression, repleted craving of 
plunder, exhausted ambition, and enervated passion, may give them, from 
mere passiveness of despotism, a season of repose and exemption from evil. 
But far more dreadful must be the sufferings, and insupportable the burthens 
of those, who, every four years, shall be subject to the will of a new master, 
swaying an unused scepter over an almost limitless empire, and attended by 
a legion of famished cormorants to fatten upon public industry, and wrest even 
from impoverished millions their meager pittance of a life of toil. No local 
resistance, or even more general popular insurrection, could avail against such 
extended dominion of power, sustained by all the hireling appurtenai.coj of 
enforcement. The magnitude of evil and the desperation of misery, as in the 
past they have, so in the future they may, drive such sufferers to seek their 
only relief in the fixed embrace of that unchanging monarchy whose more en- 
lightened inculcations may teach the wisdom of justice, as well as the sweet- 
ness of mercy ; and whose iron grasp, when felt, may sometimes weary of its 
hold, or learn from the afflictions of time — the common fate of mortality— the 
kindlier lesson of pity. 



42 

We cannot keep too prominently before ns the manifest truth that the pres- 
ent civil conflict is the struggle of the popular principle of government against 
an attempted enforcement of Imperialism. Does any one doubt it ] Let him 
behold the prostration of the civil rule by military power ; the absorption of 
the substantial powers of the States by the General Government, leaving 
them a shadow with which to blind the ignorant and credulous ; the substitu- 
tion of an unlimited and tyrannical system of military conscription for the 
constitutionally provided State militia, thus usurping a power over the lives 
and fortunes of millions of citizens without the privilege of appeal to that 
domestic authority, to which they have hitherto been taught to look for redress 
of grievances ; the perversion, as before stated, of exclusive authority to 
" coin money and regulate the value thereof," to the unlawful purpose of flood- 
ing the country with a paper issue which, under a usurpation of power, is 
made to supplant actual representatives of value, while itself is rapidly 
becoming worthless ; the enforcement upon the States of a violation of the 
Constitution, which, by the tenth section of the first article, prohibits them 
from making "anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts," 
by compelling them to receive, and consequently to disburse, a " legal tender," 
perishable alike in material and value ; the payment of its obligations in a 
depreciated paper currency, while the precious metals arc exacted of many of 
its debtors by the General Government, which, in this, exhibits an injustice and 
tyranny unprecedented in the history of despotism ; the unexampled applica- 
tion of "stamp acts," words heretofore of hateful import to American freemen; 
the detective at your heels wherever you move, and the dark lantern, unknown 
to the halcyon days of the past, that now casts its burglar flash around your 
domestic sanctuary ; the passport, that recognized writ of bondage, to be vised 
by those tools of tyranny, the provost marshals, who persecute even old men, 
women, and children, of " loyal " border States, and dispense the privilege of 
purchasing the necessaries of life under the recpiirement of a prescribed oath 
of allegiance, with various specifications of menial tyranny unknown to law 
and in violation of human right ; the restrictions on the free exercise of re- 
ligion, the abridgment of the freedom of speech and of the press, aud of the 
right of the people peaceably to assemble ; the infringement of the constitu- 
tional right of the people to keep, and bear arms ; in truth, by the utter strik- 
ing down of all the guarantees of the most valued rights of the citizen, es- 
pecially as set forth in the twelve amendments of the Constitution, without 
which it never would have been the Constitution of the United States, we 
behold a bold and unfaltering purpose to establish an Imperial Government. 

Contemplating such facts, no consistent lover of freedom can sustain, by 
word or deed, the attempt, under whatever pretence it may be made, of per- 
verting the clear and well-defined purposes of the founders of the Republic. 
To do so, would be the essence of treason, and would indeed be " adhering to 
the enemies," of the United States, who in varied, cunning and covert ways, 
have been the violators of the compact of Union, and be " giving them aid and 
comfort." 

Everywhere on the face of the broad eai-th, wherever they may be found, 
my sympathies are, and I trust yours will be, with the defenders of Constitu- 
tional Liberty, State Rights and Federal, or what is the same thing, Con- 
federate Nationality of limited general ' poivcrs, as opposed to Republican or 
any other denomination of Imperialism, which seeks to concentrate within itself 
all the powers of numerous States, and the vast resources of a continental 
empire. The establishment of such a power in America, would extinguish all 
hope of a future destiny of freedom on any part of this Western Hemisphere. 



43 

If the advocates in the Northern States, of independent State existence and 
government, of a league of States with a general government exercising dele- 
gated and strictly limited powers for the benefit of all, and of the constitu- 
tional liberty of the citizen, are incapable ot preserving these unimpared 
against the Imperalists — then, still true to the principles consecrated by the 
sufferings of our fathers, let us say — God ^prosper those who uphold them, 
tvherever they may be found, and by whatever name they may be called ! Bet- 
ter to -stand the equal of a free Confederate, than to bote as a slave at the /hot 
of an Imperialist. The principles of political freedom are immutable. What 
they were in the days of the American Revolution they still remain, and are. 
entitled: to the same devotion of patriotism ! 

It would have been well for those, who have so wantonly ami wickedly vio- 
lated the great charter of Independence, sealed by our fathers, and transmit- 
ted a priceless heritage to their children, if they had, in considering the sub- 
sequent and cancelled covenant, been reminded, like the accursed Shylock, by 
unswerving justice, that in the exaction of presumed forfeiture, the letter of 
the bond did give them "no drop of Christian blood " — and 

"That indirectly and directly too 
They had contrived against the very life 
Of the defendant " — 

thus incurring the penalty of confiscation of their own liberty, and the judg- 
ment of general condemnation by posterity. 











* ,<r 




i9 »^llr* * 



iG* 






^ ♦} 



v; V 1 








i?k° \, 







